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。
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
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
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
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
2:24-cv-00260, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
IPR2025-00592, -00593, -00594, -00595, PTAB
337-TA-1367, ITC, Judge Moore
2:23-cv-10783, C.D. Cal., Judges Anelle-Rocha, Eick
IPR2023-01414, PTAB, Judges Abraham, Cass, Hamann
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
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
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
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.