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)

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.

IP Practice Group of the Year in 2013, 2015 and 2016

Chambers Global 2018
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 USA 2017
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 Asia-Pacific 2018
Japan: Intellectual Property: International Firms
Asia-Pacific Region: Intellectual Property

U.S. News – Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms 2018
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 National Law Journal 2016
IP Hot List

Legal 500 US 2018
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 2018
China: Intellectual Property: Foreign Firms
Hong Kong: Intellectual Property
Japan: Intellectual Property: International Firms and Joint Ventures

Managing IP: American Awards Shortlist 2018
United States: Appellate
United States: Life Sciences IP Litigation
United States: ITC
Japan: Patent – Foreign Firms

IAM Patent 1000 2017
California: Litigation (Gold)
California: Transactions (Highly Recommended)
California: Prosecution
Hong Kong: Litigation & Transactions
Japan: Litigation and Licensing (Highly Recommended)
National: Transactions
National: Litigation
Washington D.C.: Litigation

LMG Life Sciences 2017
Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation
Patent Prosecution (Highly Recommended)
Patent Strategy and Management (Highly Recommended)

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.

©1996-2019 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.