在激烈的市场竞争中,创新型企业往往要捍卫其专利的有效性或挑战竞争对手的专利有效性。审查专利局授权专利的程序非常复杂,往往涉及平行诉讼,这就要求律师深入了解诉讼程序之间的相互作用以及如何优化整体策略来确保各项诉讼的成功。无论是通过美国专利商标局(USPTO)专利审判和上诉委员会(PTAB)的授权后复审、德国专利商标局(DPMA)专利部或欧洲专利局(EPO)的异议,还是德国联邦专利法院的无效诉讼,飞翰都是代表客户处理这些程序最有经验的律所之一。我们已为200多个涵盖各个行业的企业客户代理专利无效程序、制定不同战略目标,积累了相当数量和类型的丰富经验。
我们代理请求人和专利权人案件业务均衡,并获得了各大奖项和排名、以及专注从业人员观察和评论的新闻媒体的持续认可。我们的成功在于深入了解相关法庭、规则、趋势和程序。我们每个月都会在PTAB博客发布我们跟踪的各类PTAB数据。此外,我们也会发布累积的PTAB数据。
在欧洲、德国和美国知识产权法下,诉讼和无效策略的相互作用
我们鼓励律师参与地区法院、政府机构诉讼以及上诉,多方面积累经验。在与法官协调期间,这些综合性经验让我们能够就对案件至关重要的问题瞬间做出决定。也让我们能够利用飞翰在全球的诉讼经验做出进攻或防御战略的商业决策。飞翰拥有数十年的专利法庭和专利申办经验,特别适合处理专利无效案件。我们的律师善于分析上诉中各个可能事项的成功几率,为客户提供咨询并提供最佳的综合上诉策略,以取得成功并满足客户的商业需求。
合作推进商业目标、提升市场价值
保护和促进创新及市场信任是飞翰的基本宗旨。飞翰坚持具有服务精神的文化且保持在专业律师协会和法律协会的领导地位,并与工业界同仁和政府合作以促进知识产权保护和提高行业专业水准。我们参与的组织包括联邦巡回法院律师协会(FCBA)、欧洲专利局专利代理人协会(epi)、美国专利商标局PTAB律师协会。
溯源调查程序是《美国发明法案》先申请制条款的特例。
干预程序对于符合提早申请日期资格的权利要求的许多专利申请,仍然是可行的。
In Germany, the validity of a patent can be challenged only by means of a nullity action with the Federal Patent Court or, if still admissible, in an opposition with the Patent Office.
欧洲专利局(EPO)的异议程序为第三方提供了在欧洲专利授权后的一段有限的时间内,在欧洲专利局集中攻击攻击欧洲专利的机会。
我们的欧洲专利律师在欧洲专利局(EPO)的异议部和各种上诉委员会都有丰富的经验。
根据《美国发明法案》,单方复审程序仍为挑战专利有效性的重要选项。
飞翰拥有百余件授权后程序的经验,并熟知这些独特的诉讼程序和潜在的危险。
第三方意见可以向任何欧洲专利申请或诉讼中的专利(包括欧洲专利局异议和上诉)提出。我们的欧洲专利律师对于准备和递交第三方意见拥有丰富的经验。
In a rare rehearing proceeding, successfully represented petitioner Incyte in an inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of Concert’s patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Continued representation of appellee Incyte before the Federal Circuit and secured a unanimous affirmance of the PTAB’s obviousness determination.
IPR2017-01256, PTAB, Judges Fitzpatrick, Hulse, Yang, Smith, Franklin
19-2011, Fed. Cir., Judges Hughs, Linn, Stark
2:22-cv-00507, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
2:22-cv-0318, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
1:23-cv-00756, N.D. Ill., Judge Kocoras
IPR2023-00815, -00816, -00817, PTAB
337-TA-1267, ITC, Judge Bhattacharyya
IPR2021-01321, -01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
2:21-cv-00054; -00172, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
2:22-cv-00291, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
IPR2022-01593, IPR2023-00143, -00144, -00183, -00184, -00829, PTAB, Judges Dirba, Droesch, McMillin, White, Zecher
22-2012, Fed. Cir., Judges Hughes, Reyna, Stark
IPR2021-00181, PTAB, Judges Deshpande, Hagy, Wieker
1:20-cv-01907, N.D. Ga., Judge Grimberg
1:21-cv-00030, D. Del., Judge Bryson
IPR2022-01200, PGR2022-00051, PTAB, Judges Newman, Snedden, Wisz
22-2232, Fed. Cir.
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 2024
Media Mention
Women in Business Law Americas Awards 2024: Three Finnegan Attorneys Shortlisted
April 7, 2024
Award/Ranking
Managing IP Americas Awards 2024: Finnegan Shortlisted for Nine Awards, Including Firm of the Year
March 12, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.