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

Press Release

Ninth Circuit Denies Zync’s Emergency Motion to Stay; BMW’s Preliminary Injunction Remains in Full Effect, ITC Stay Expected to Continue

July 23, 2026

Commentary

PTAB Filings Down 81% in Q2 2026 as Patent Challengers Abandon IPR Playbook

July 13, 2026

Commentary

SCOTUS to Rule on Pepsi Win, Trademark Enforcement Changes Could Follow

July 13, 2026

Commentary

Levi’s Has Filed 2 New Lawsuits This Year to Protect Its Red Tab Trademark

July 9, 2026

Commentary

‘Oyez, Oyez.’ Supreme Court’s Last Official Crier Dies at 102

July 8, 2026

Award/Ranking

Best Lawyers in Germany Recognizes Dr. Dr. Jochen Herr in Recent Rankings

July 16, 2026

Commentary

Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects

June 30, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings

June 25, 2026

Commentary

Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW

June 24, 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