直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 我们的专业人员
  • 服务
  • 我们的见解
  • 办公室
  • 事务所
  • 人才招聘
Finnegan
  • 新闻
  • 飞翰事实
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • 慈善性法律援助
  • 管理层
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

James R. Barney

IP Counsel Exchange on Post-Grant Patent Challenges at the PTAB

March 30, 2015

Momentum Event Group

Finnegan partners Aaron J. Capron and Linda J. Thayer were interviewed by Momentum Event Group, host of the “IP Counsel Exchange on Post-Grant Patent Challenges at the PTAB” conference, to get their thoughts on trials and the litigation of patent claims before the PTAB. In the interview, they discussed unique procedural nuances of the PTAB; how patent claims are handled at the PTAB compared to federal district court proceedings; and filing considerations for clients when contemplating filing a claim with the PTAB vs. filing in federal district court.

As co-lead counsel for one of the first covered business method (CBM) proceedings instituted under the American Invents Act (AIA) [CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc.], Capron describes his experience. The petition was filed on September 16, 2012—the same day that the AIA went into effect. In the district court litigation, the judge stayed the case, pending the outcome of the CBM proceeding. Once the CBM proceedings was instituted, Capron recalls working with the Board and learning early on to be prepared to discuss anything regarding claim construction issues, procedures, and deadlines. Capron also discusses the differences in how patent claims are handled at the PTAB compared to district court. Some of these nuances include more focused discovery, the change in claim construction standards, and the construction of “means plus function” terms.

Thayer discussed her thoughts on the PTAB as a venue for efficiently resolving high stakes patent claims. She believes that it’s an ideal forum for resolving validity because the judges are technology savvy and they truly understand patent law. She describes the proceedings as fast, streamlined, and cost effective in comparison to litigation. Thayer also provides insight into how she helps clients who are considering filing at the PTAB. For petitioners looking to challenge patents, she first determines which post-grant procedure the client may be eligible to use. She also looks at the claims and the art to assess what invalidity argument may exist. For patent owners, she tells her clients to expect the possibility that the defendants will challenge their patent in front of the PTAB and that they should identify any obvious issues before initiating litigation. If any issues with the patent are found, Thayer then counsels the clients on how to fix the issues before filing the district court action.

Related Practices

专利局无效程序

PTAB无效程序:双方复审及授权后复审

Related News

Award/Ranking

Forbes Names Finnegan Partner Erika Harmon Arner on its Inaugural 2026 America’s Top Women Lawyers List

June 5, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked

May 28, 2026

Commentary

Quince Aims to Have ‘Dupe’ Evidence Shape Ugg Shoe Patent Trial

May 26, 2026

Commentary

New Appellate Opinion in Amazon Biometric Data Case May Signal ‘Narrowing’ Scope of BIPA Litigation, Experts Say

May 20, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Partner Antje Brambrink Shortlisted for Women in Business Law EMEA Award

May 13, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination

May 11, 2026

Commentary

ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign

May 8, 2026

Award/Ranking

Associates Rank Finnegan “Best of the Best” in BTI Associate Satisfaction Survey

May 7, 2026

Commentary

How Litigation Funding Disclosure Could Affect ITC Cases

May 7 , 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • 隐私
  • 免责申明
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP