Inter Partes Review + Post Grant Practice


Our Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Practice assists companies with post grant challenges to patents in the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). With over 100 PTO-admitted trial lawyers and patent prosecutors, our group helps clients navigate the intricacies of these challenges under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Collectively, we have represented clients in nearly 80 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings alone.

IPR and post grant review proceedings are PTO proceedings that are directed to invalidating patent claims, but with features similar to those of conventional litigation. Both allow for limited discovery and culminate in a hearing before a panel of administrative patent judges to determine whether the claims at issue should be invalidated. Because both typically must be completed within one year, IPR and post grant review provide a quicker and more cost-effective alternative to conventional litigation—faster than any of the top patent venues.

As a hybrid between PTO proceedings and federal court litigation, IPRs require expertise across the patent spectrum. Continuing our pioneering approach of pairing our trial lawyers with our patent prosecutors to advise clients on their most complicated patent-related matters, our Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Practice is drawn from one of the largest, most collaborative intellectual property groups of any general practice firm.

Our patent litigators are renowned for their trial skills, having successfully assisted clients in hundreds of patent lawsuits, often involving the most difficult and complex circumstances, and developing new models for winning tough cases. Likewise, our patent prosecutors have done the same in hundreds of reexaminations and interference proceedings, on which the new IPR proceedings are modeled.

We have successfully represented clients in IPRs all the way through trial and final written decision.  For example, we recently convinced the PTAB that all claims asserted in related litigation against our client were unpatentable on multiple grounds. Acting on behalf of patentees, we have also helped patent holders obtain PTAB rulings denying IPR before the PTAB.

Law360
IP Practice Group of the Year 2015, 2013


Chambers USA 2016
National: Intellectual Property
National: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337)
California: Intellectual Property
California: Intellectual Property (Patent Prosecution)
New York: Technology & Outsourcing
Washington D.C.: Intellectual Property (Litigation)
Washington D.C.: Technology & Outsourcing


Chambers Global 2016
Global: Intellectual Property
Asia-Pacific Region: Intellectual Property
China: Intellectual Property: International Firms
Japan: Intellectual Property: International Firms
United States: Intellectual Property (Patent)
United States: Intellectual Property (Section 337)


Chambers Asia-Pacific 2017
2011 Asia Pacific Awards: Japan – International Firm of the Year
Japan: Intellectual Property: International Firms
Asia-Pacific Region: Intellectual Property
China: Intellectual Property: International Firms


BTI Litigation Outlook
“IP VIP” (2015)
“IP Litigation Powerhouse” (2014)


U.S. News – Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms 2015
National: IP Litigation (Tier 1)
National: Patent Litigation (Tier 1)
National: Patent Law (Tier 1)
Los Angeles: IP Litigation (Tier 1)
Los Angeles: Patent Litigation (Tier 1)
San Diego: IP Litigation (Tier 1)
San Diego: Patent Litigation (Tier 1)
San Diego: Patent Law (Tier 1)
San Francisco: IP Litigation (Tier 1)
San Francisco: Patent Litigation (Tier 1)
San Francisco: Patent Law (Tier 1)
Washington D.C.: IP Litigation (Tier 1)
Washington D.C.: Patent Litigation (Tier 1)


The Recorder
Three IP Litigators named 2012 Attorney of the Year by The Recorder.


The National Law Journal 2015
IP Hot List


Legal 500 US 2016
Copyright
Patent Litigation: ITC
Patent Litigation: Full Coverage
Patents: Portfolio Management and Licensing
Patent: Prosecution (Including re-examination and post-grant proceedings)
Trade Secrets
Trademarks: Litigation


Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2015
China: Foreign Firms
Hong Kong
Japan: International Firms and Joint Ventures


Managing IP: Patent Survey 2015
United States: Bio/Life Sciences
United States: Patent Contentious
United States: Patent Prosecution
United States: ITC
Japan: Patent – foreign firms


Asian Legal Business Japan Law Awards 2015
IP Law Firm of the Year


Benchmark Litigation Awards 2014
Intellectual Property Firm of the Year
California Firm of the Year
National Impact Case Award


IAM Patent 1000 2016
California: Litigation (Gold)
California: Transactions(Highly Recommended)
California: Prosecution
Hong Kong: Litigation & Transactions
International
Japan: Litigation and Licensing (Highly Recommended)
National: Transactions
National: Litigation
Washington D.C.: Litigation


LMG Life Sciences 2013
Firm of the year: Patent Prosecution

Mehran Arjomand
Partner
Los Angeles
(213) 892-5630

Richard S.J. Hung
Partner
San Francisco
(415) 268-7602

Matthew I. Kreeger
Partner
San Francisco
(415) 268-6467

National Law Journal - 2016 IP Hot List


Law 360 - IP Practice Group of the Year
IP Practice Group of the Year 2015, 2013


Chambers USA Winner 2013 - IP Firm of the Year
IP Firm of the Year


BTI Litigation Outlook
BTI Litigation Outlook
“IP VIP” (2015)
“IP Litigation Powerhouse” (2014)

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.