EN | ES | DE | FR | IT | 日本語 | 한국어 | 中文

POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS SERIES: Is IPR the Best Decision for Me?

ALLERGAN BATTLES TO KEEP BOTOX-MANUFACTURING PROCESS A TRADE SECRET
October 29, 2019
PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HIGHLIGHTS TRAP FOR THE UNWARY
November 22, 2019
Show all

POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS SERIES

Is IPR the best decision for me?

 

By: Emily Gaukstern

The America Invents Act (AIA), put into effect September 16, 2012, created three new post-grant review proceedings: post-grant review (PGR), inter partes review (IPR), and covered business method (CBM) review. With the creation of post-grant proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has grown to become the venue most popular for litigating patent disputes in the United States, with a total of 1,606 litigations in 2018.

Before the AIA, a third-party disputer attempting to invalidate a patent before the USPTO had only two options: have limited involvement in a ex part reexamination procedure, or have slightly more involvement in an inter partes reexamination procedure. Disputing a patent before the USPTO, as opposed to in the federal court, reduces the time of litigation, reduces the total cost, and mitigates the risk of a counter strike. The AIA has provided a third-party disputer with many different avenues to challenge the invalidity of a patent.

IPR has proved to be an effective alternative to inter partes reexamination. Additionally, IPR offers considerable benefits over a district court patent litigation. Inter Partes Review follows a trial-like proceeding conducted in front of the PTAB, a panel of administrative judges at the USPTO.

Is inter partes review the best post-grant proceeding option for you? Learn more about the process with this quick guide to IPRs:

POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS SERIES: Is IPR the best decision for me?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *