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
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • 生命科学
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • 经验

PTAB无效程序:双方复审及授权后复审

About

我们在专利审判和上诉委员会受理过1300多起双方复审(IPR),授权后复审(PGR)和商业方法专利复议(CBM)案件,包括涉及外观设计专利的双方复审以及70多次商业方法专利复议,熟知这些独特的诉讼程序和潜在的危险。程序上的过失或策略上的误算都有很大可能性会发生。行政专利法官是具有科学和技术背景的专利律师。他们可能并时常会面对专利技术、现有技术以及专利审判和上诉委员会程序。在专利审判和上诉委员会申辩时,同时细致了解技术和法律至关重要。虽然在代表请求人方面我们被认为是最富有经验的律师事务所,但我们的实务还有一个显著特点,为专利所有人提供辩护也是我们工作的重要部分。我们与谈判桌双方都打交道,能让我们成为面临授权后挑战的客户的客观资源。

我们详细审查每个程序(双方复审、授权后复审和商业方法专利复议)的规则、要求和细微差别以及专利审判和上诉委员会不断发展的指导方针,使我们能够为客户建议挑战相关专利或避开攻击的最佳手段。我们凭借精悍的律师团队处理各个案件,在诉讼程序(包括商业方法复审程序中经常被提出的无法取得专利的挑战事项)中拥有丰富经验,具备有关争议技术的相关知识以及在专利审判和上诉委员会简述案情和申辩案件的经验。通过这种整合团队法,飞翰做到了在70多次商业方法专利复议、超过15次授权后复审(已申请的相对较少)以及750多次双方复审程序中为客户提供高效代理服务。

Everyone in this practice

经验

Carrum Technologies, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

Obtained complete victory against Carrum on appeal of the District of Delaware’s claim construction to the Federal Circuit following Carrum’s stipulation of non-infringement under the claim construction, thereby exonerating BMW’s ACC system, first sold in 2000, against Carrum’s 2004 patents. Invalidated several asserted claims through post-grant efforts before the U.S. Patent Office, including IPRs and EPRs, and pursued claims through proceedings before the Eastern District of Virginia to vindicate BMW’s patent challenges.

1:18-cv-01645, D. Del., Judge Andrews
21-1435, 24-1480, Fed. Cir., Judges Clevenger, Cunningham, Lourie, Moore, Prost, Taranto
IPR2019-00902, -00903, -00904, -00905, -00927, 00928, PTAB, Judges Browne, Scanlon, Tornquist
90/019,010, CRU

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

Finnegan represented Bausch & Lomb’s licensee Eye Therapies, LLC in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding Eye Therapies’ patent directed to a low-dose brimonidine treatment for eye redness (Lumify®) to be unpatentable. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with Finnegan’s arguments and found that the Board had wrongly invalidated the patent based on an incorrect claim construction, vacating and remanding the case back to the PTAB. The proceeding settled shortly thereafter

23-2173, Fed. Cir., Judges Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi

Jumio Corporation v. FaceTec, Inc.

Representing FaceTec, Inc. in four inter partes reviews (IPRs) relating to groundbreaking 3D liveness detection technology.

IPR2025-00106, -00107, -00108, -00109, PTAB, Judges Khan, Hoang, Baer

BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Arigna Technology Ltd.

Secured a covenant-not-to-sue and zero-dollar walkaway for BMW Group in a declaratory judgment action, concluding Arigna’s high-profile patent enforcement campaign involving current amplification technology. This outcome follows a decisive ITC victory, the dismissal of parallel District Court litigation, and multiple concurrent patent office challenges pending at the time of resolution.

1:23-cv-01190, D.D.C., Judge Contreras
2:21-cv-00173, E.D. Tex.
IPR2021-01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
23-1931, Fed. Cir.
90/019,261, USPTO

Maxeon Solar PTE, Ltd., v. REC Solar Holdings AS 
Represented REC before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and in parallel IPR filings regarding TOPCon solar cells.

2:24-cv-00260, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
IPR2025-00592, -00593, -00594, -00595, PTAB

Bell Northern Research, LLC v. MediaTek Inc. et al.
Obtained favorable settlement prior to trial at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) after obtaining a finding of indefiniteness of one of three asserted patents, institution of inter partes review (IPR) of another patent, and filing an offensive case seeking damages, inter alia, in the form of attorneys’ fees for being forced to defend against Bell Northern’s assertion of patents in violation of FRAND licensing obligations.

337-TA-1367, ITC, Judge Moore
2:23-cv-10783, C.D. Cal., Judges Anelle-Rocha, Eick
IPR2023-01414, PTAB, Judges Abraham, Cass, Hamann

More

专业见解

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

More

新闻

Commentary

Litigation Leaders: Finnegan’s Jennifer Roscetti on the Advantages of Being Fully Focused on IP

April 6, 2026

Commentary

Squires’ Latest PTAB Memo Seeks to Boost U.S. Manufacturing with New Discretionary Factors

March 18, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Wins “Intellectual Property Firm of the Year” at the 2026 Benchmark Litigation Awards

March 12, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Achieves Massive CBP Victory for Innoscience, Capping a Series of Decisive Wins Against EPC

February 24, 2026

Commentary

Squires Sinks 2 PTAB Challenges, Including 1 He Instituted

February 20, 2026

Press Release

USPTO Director Reverses IPR Institution, Denies Carbyne's Challenge to CentralSquare's U.S. Patent No. RE50,016 in Full, Citing Inconsistent Claim Constructions

February 19, 2026

More

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