直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • 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

專利局受理之無效程序

專利審理暨訴願委員會受理之無效程序: 多方複審及核准後複審

Related Professionals

Aaron J. Capron
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6680
Email

Related News

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Recognized Again Among Germany’s Leading Law Firms

October 9, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Commentary

Catching Up with Hope Shimabuku

September 29, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027

September 24, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower

September 23, 2026

Commentary

New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret

September 21, 2026

Commentary

FORUM IP Talks: Dr. Jochen Herr on UPC, FRAND, and Cross-Border Enforcement Topics

September 20, 2026

Commentary

Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say

September 17, 2026

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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