Successful track record. Our team knows how to win cases by persuading the technical fact-finders at the USPTO. With post-grant proceedings rising in prominence – whether as an alternative to litigation or as a central piece of a litigation strategy – winning a post-grant proceeding is now a critical step in winning a patent dispute. We have delivered for our clients. While challengers frequently win in such proceedings, we also win when we represent patent owners, persuading the Patent Trial and Appeal Board not to cancel claims – and in many cases not to even institute a trial – or convincing examiners to withdraw their rejections in reexaminations.

2016/2017 Snapshot of Post-Grant Matters:



Deep experience in the art of technical persuasion.
We honed our skills for persuasively presenting the technical and legal issues that pervade post-grant proceedings through years of successfully handling reexams, winning patent litigations, and excelling in interferences. And, when post-grant proceedings entail changing the claims of a patent, our years of experience procuring patents for our clients comes into play, enabling us to guide clients through the choices of whether and how to amend a patent. As an IP specialty firm, we have built an infrastructure to support maneuvering within the rigid timelines and rules for responding to USPTO actions and submitting evidence.


Ahead of the curve in highly specialized proceedings.
  • First-ever PTAB dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds: We successfully asserted a sovereign immunity defense on behalf of our client, the University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF), persuading the PTAB to dismiss three IPRs. In an issue of first impression, the PTAB found that UFRF is an arm of the state of Florida entitled to sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be subject to IPRs involuntarily. While state universities had previously had patents challenged before the PTAB, no party had ever asserted that sovereign immunity renders a state entity immune to those challenges. (IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276)
  • First-ever PTAB grant of attorneys’ fees: The PTAB granted a motion for attorneys’ fees filed by our client RPX Corporation, a leading provider of patent risk solutions, in three IPR proceedings in which RPX challenged patents owned and asserted by a non-practicing entity. This unprecedented attorneys’ fees award followed the rare granting of a motion for sanctions, which the Board held was appropriate in this case because the NPE violated a protective order in its handling of RPX’s confidential information. In addition to attorneys’ fees, the Board also granted RPX’s request for other types of sanctions. (IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752)
  • First-ever PTAB win on secondary considerations: Our client Saint-Gobain S.A. won confirmation of all claims in its patent, marking a rare instance (less than 15% chance) of a patent surviving an AIA review unscathed. In finding the claims nonobvious, the PTAB relied upon the evidentiary record Saint-Gobain was able to develop demonstrating commercial success of the invention. (IPR2014-00309)
  • First-ever pre-institution deposition of non-declarant: While we were defending four of our client EMC Corporation’s patents in IPRs, the PTAB granted us a pre-institution deposition of the petitioner’s CEO on the question of whether the petitions properly named all real parties in interest. The PTAB had never previously granted a pre-institution deposition of a non-declarant. The deposition testimony proved useful in persuading the PTAB that the petitions failed to identify all real parties in interest, resulting in the PTAB denying institution on all four petitions. (IPR2014-01295, IPR2014-01254, IPR2014-01329, IPR2014-01332)

Representative inter partes reviews (IPRs), patent owner side

  • EMC: Persuaded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to deny an infringer’s petitions to institute IPRs on five patents being asserted by our client EMC. The denials served as a turning point in the concurrent litigation and gave EMC a leg up in preparing validity positions for trial. (Institution denied: IPR2014-01295, IPR2014-01254, IPR2014-01329, IPR2013-00458, IPR2014-01332)
  • Saint-Gobain: Won confirmation of all claims in a patent owned by our client Saint-Gobain—marking a rare instance of a patent surviving an America Invents Act review entirely unscathed. We convinced the PTAB to reverse its initial view that the claims were likely invalid by showing that Saint-Gobain’s significant commercial success was tied to the patented invention. This was the first time the PTAB found claims patentable in an IPR based on secondary or objective factors. (Confirmation of all claims: IPR2014-00309)
  • BTG: Convinced the PTAB not to institute an IPR on behalf of our longtime client BTG International Inc., the manufacturer of CroFab® rattlesnake antivenom, preserving BTG’s right under a settlement agreement regarding an ITC litigation to prevent a competitor antivenom product from infringing its patent. (Institution denied: IPR2014-01269)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: Convinced the PTAB not to institute four IPRs on four separate patents on behalf of our client Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The outcome preserved CSHL’s robust and widely licensed shRNA patent portfolio, which has generated more than $1 million in licensing revenue for the client. (Institution denied: IPR2016-00014, IPR2016-00015, IPR2016-00016, IPR2016-00017)

Representative inter partes reviews (IPRs), petitioner side

  • RPX: Persuaded the PTAB to grant a motion for sanctions and subsequently a motion for attorneys’ fees filed by our client RPX Corporation, a leading provider of patent risk solutions, in three IPRs. The PTAB held that sanctions, rarely granted, were appropriate in this case since the patent owner violated a protective order in its handling of RPX’s confidential information. (Three petitions instituted on all grounds: IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752)
  • RPX: Filed a petition on behalf of RPX Corporation that led the patent owner to disclaim its patent before the PTAB could institute a trial. An exceedingly small number of patent owners disclaim their patents before institution, making this a rare occurrence and complete victory for our client. (All patent claims cancelled: IPR2015-00736)
  • Sony: While defending Sony in a complex multi-respondent action before the International Trade Commission, filed IPR petitions against all three asserted patents. Our concerted attack on the patents before the ITC and in the Patent Office led the patent owner to drop the suit entirely less than two weeks before the ITC hearing was set to begin. Sony reached a favorable settlement that included withdrawal of its IPR petitions. (Favorable settlement: IPR2014-00230, IPR2014-00231, IPR2014-00229)

Representative reexaminations

  • Nuance: Represented patent owner Nuance Communications, Inc. in nine reexamination proceedings arising from two different parallel litigations. All nine were resolved with all claims confirmed.
  • Bard: Led multi-firm effort to overcome rejections in reexamination of a medical device patent owned by C. R. Bard, Inc. on which there was an outstanding judgment in excess of $1 billion. Developed strategy that resulted in immediate withdrawal of the rejections and secured the judgment.
  • Ascion: Won final cancellation of all original claims and rejection of all added claims, ending the patent portion of a dispute between our client and a vendor. Related Litigation: Ascion LLC v. Ruoey Lung Enterprise Corp.

Representative interferences

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), interferences will be phased out in the coming years; however, they are still a viable alternative for patents filed before March 16, 2013.

  • Cooper v. Goldfarb. Won the longest-running patent interference in USPTO history, prevailing in three Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decisions and two Federal Circuit appeals. The resulting patent issued in 2002 and has been litigated with success.
  • Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation. Won a dismissal that not only preserved our client’s valuable patent rights, but also significantly expanded the existing law and provided additional protection to all patent holders by restricting the ability of patent applicants to provoke an interference against an issued patent.
  • Raz v. Krieg. Represented the prevailing inventor in two related patent interferences. In the first, we prevailed in the preliminary motions period, and the other side appealed and then abandoned the appeal. In the second, the other side conceded and requested that judgment be entered in our favor.
  • Adimab v. Dyax. Invalidated Adimab's patent and removed an anticipatory reference as prior art by proving 11 months of diligence for Dyax. Resulted in Dyax obtaining a patent originally granted to a top competitor. Such successful long diligence showings are very rare.
  • Bestfoods v. Barber Foods. Developed a strategy that caused the patentee to concede the interference, resulting in a former collaborator’s patent being cancelled and allowing our client to obtain a patent on that subject matter.
  • Landers v. Sapolsky. Prevailed on behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on §112 grounds, as Sapolsky’s claims were not supported because they were broader in scope than the method disclosed in the specification.

Representative clients:

  • athenahealth - provider of cloud-based services for health care and point-of-care mobile apps
  • BTG plc - international specialist healthcare company developing and commercializing products targeting critical care, cancer and other disorders
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory - private, nonprofit research and education institution at the forefront of molecular biology and genetics
  • C.R. Bard, Inc. - medical equipment and devices manufacturer
  • Davol - market leader in comprehensive soft tissue reconstruction
  • Dell EMC - provider of IT storage hardware solutions to promote data backup and recovery
  • Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd. - producer of injection molding equipment and services for the plastics industry
  • RPX Corporation - provider of patent risk solutions
  • Saint-Gobain S.A. - producer of construction and high-performance materials
  • Smith & Nephew - multinational medical equipment manufacturing company
  • Sony Corporation - manufacturer of audio, home video game consoles, communications, and key device and information technology products

Successful track record. Our team knows how to win cases by persuading the technical fact-finders at the USPTO. With post-grant proceedings rising in prominence – whether as an alternative to litigation or as a central piece of a litigation strategy – winning a post-grant proceeding is now a critical step in winning a patent dispute. We have delivered for our clients. While challengers frequently win in such proceedings, we also win when we represent patent owners, persuading the Patent Trial and Appeal Board not to cancel claims – and in many cases not to even institute a trial – or convincing examiners to withdraw their rejections in reexaminations.

2016/2017 Snapshot of Post-Grant Matters:



Deep experience in the art of technical persuasion.
We honed our skills for persuasively presenting the technical and legal issues that pervade post-grant proceedings through years of successfully handling reexams, winning patent litigations, and excelling in interferences. And, when post-grant proceedings entail changing the claims of a patent, our years of experience procuring patents for our clients comes into play, enabling us to guide clients through the choices of whether and how to amend a patent. As an IP specialty firm, we have built an infrastructure to support maneuvering within the rigid timelines and rules for responding to USPTO actions and submitting evidence.


Ahead of the curve in highly specialized proceedings.
  • First-ever PTAB dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds: We successfully asserted a sovereign immunity defense on behalf of our client, the University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF), persuading the PTAB to dismiss three IPRs. In an issue of first impression, the PTAB found that UFRF is an arm of the state of Florida entitled to sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be subject to IPRs involuntarily. While state universities had previously had patents challenged before the PTAB, no party had ever asserted that sovereign immunity renders a state entity immune to those challenges. (IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276)
  • First-ever PTAB grant of attorneys’ fees: The PTAB granted a motion for attorneys’ fees filed by our client RPX Corporation, a leading provider of patent risk solutions, in three IPR proceedings in which RPX challenged patents owned and asserted by a non-practicing entity. This unprecedented attorneys’ fees award followed the rare granting of a motion for sanctions, which the Board held was appropriate in this case because the NPE violated a protective order in its handling of RPX’s confidential information. In addition to attorneys’ fees, the Board also granted RPX’s request for other types of sanctions. (IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752)
  • First-ever PTAB win on secondary considerations: Our client Saint-Gobain S.A. won confirmation of all claims in its patent, marking a rare instance (less than 15% chance) of a patent surviving an AIA review unscathed. In finding the claims nonobvious, the PTAB relied upon the evidentiary record Saint-Gobain was able to develop demonstrating commercial success of the invention. (IPR2014-00309)
  • First-ever pre-institution deposition of non-declarant: While we were defending four of our client EMC Corporation’s patents in IPRs, the PTAB granted us a pre-institution deposition of the petitioner’s CEO on the question of whether the petitions properly named all real parties in interest. The PTAB had never previously granted a pre-institution deposition of a non-declarant. The deposition testimony proved useful in persuading the PTAB that the petitions failed to identify all real parties in interest, resulting in the PTAB denying institution on all four petitions. (IPR2014-01295, IPR2014-01254, IPR2014-01329, IPR2014-01332)

Representative inter partes reviews (IPRs), patent owner side

  • EMC: Persuaded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to deny an infringer’s petitions to institute IPRs on five patents being asserted by our client EMC. The denials served as a turning point in the concurrent litigation and gave EMC a leg up in preparing validity positions for trial. (Institution denied: IPR2014-01295, IPR2014-01254, IPR2014-01329, IPR2013-00458, IPR2014-01332)
  • Saint-Gobain: Won confirmation of all claims in a patent owned by our client Saint-Gobain—marking a rare instance of a patent surviving an America Invents Act review entirely unscathed. We convinced the PTAB to reverse its initial view that the claims were likely invalid by showing that Saint-Gobain’s significant commercial success was tied to the patented invention. This was the first time the PTAB found claims patentable in an IPR based on secondary or objective factors. (Confirmation of all claims: IPR2014-00309)
  • BTG: Convinced the PTAB not to institute an IPR on behalf of our longtime client BTG International Inc., the manufacturer of CroFab® rattlesnake antivenom, preserving BTG’s right under a settlement agreement regarding an ITC litigation to prevent a competitor antivenom product from infringing its patent. (Institution denied: IPR2014-01269)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory: Convinced the PTAB not to institute four IPRs on four separate patents on behalf of our client Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. The outcome preserved CSHL’s robust and widely licensed shRNA patent portfolio, which has generated more than $1 million in licensing revenue for the client. (Institution denied: IPR2016-00014, IPR2016-00015, IPR2016-00016, IPR2016-00017)

Representative inter partes reviews (IPRs), petitioner side

  • RPX: Persuaded the PTAB to grant a motion for sanctions and subsequently a motion for attorneys’ fees filed by our client RPX Corporation, a leading provider of patent risk solutions, in three IPRs. The PTAB held that sanctions, rarely granted, were appropriate in this case since the patent owner violated a protective order in its handling of RPX’s confidential information. (Three petitions instituted on all grounds: IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752)
  • RPX: Filed a petition on behalf of RPX Corporation that led the patent owner to disclaim its patent before the PTAB could institute a trial. An exceedingly small number of patent owners disclaim their patents before institution, making this a rare occurrence and complete victory for our client. (All patent claims cancelled: IPR2015-00736)
  • Sony: While defending Sony in a complex multi-respondent action before the International Trade Commission, filed IPR petitions against all three asserted patents. Our concerted attack on the patents before the ITC and in the Patent Office led the patent owner to drop the suit entirely less than two weeks before the ITC hearing was set to begin. Sony reached a favorable settlement that included withdrawal of its IPR petitions. (Favorable settlement: IPR2014-00230, IPR2014-00231, IPR2014-00229)

Representative reexaminations

  • Nuance: Represented patent owner Nuance Communications, Inc. in nine reexamination proceedings arising from two different parallel litigations. All nine were resolved with all claims confirmed.
  • Bard: Led multi-firm effort to overcome rejections in reexamination of a medical device patent owned by C. R. Bard, Inc. on which there was an outstanding judgment in excess of $1 billion. Developed strategy that resulted in immediate withdrawal of the rejections and secured the judgment.
  • Ascion: Won final cancellation of all original claims and rejection of all added claims, ending the patent portion of a dispute between our client and a vendor. Related Litigation: Ascion LLC v. Ruoey Lung Enterprise Corp.

Representative interferences

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), interferences will be phased out in the coming years; however, they are still a viable alternative for patents filed before March 16, 2013.

  • Cooper v. Goldfarb. Won the longest-running patent interference in USPTO history, prevailing in three Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decisions and two Federal Circuit appeals. The resulting patent issued in 2002 and has been litigated with success.
  • Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation. Won a dismissal that not only preserved our client’s valuable patent rights, but also significantly expanded the existing law and provided additional protection to all patent holders by restricting the ability of patent applicants to provoke an interference against an issued patent.
  • Raz v. Krieg. Represented the prevailing inventor in two related patent interferences. In the first, we prevailed in the preliminary motions period, and the other side appealed and then abandoned the appeal. In the second, the other side conceded and requested that judgment be entered in our favor.
  • Adimab v. Dyax. Invalidated Adimab's patent and removed an anticipatory reference as prior art by proving 11 months of diligence for Dyax. Resulted in Dyax obtaining a patent originally granted to a top competitor. Such successful long diligence showings are very rare.
  • Bestfoods v. Barber Foods. Developed a strategy that caused the patentee to concede the interference, resulting in a former collaborator’s patent being cancelled and allowing our client to obtain a patent on that subject matter.
  • Landers v. Sapolsky. Prevailed on behalf of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on §112 grounds, as Sapolsky’s claims were not supported because they were broader in scope than the method disclosed in the specification.

Representative clients:

  • athenahealth - provider of cloud-based services for health care and point-of-care mobile apps
  • BTG plc - international specialist healthcare company developing and commercializing products targeting critical care, cancer and other disorders
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory - private, nonprofit research and education institution at the forefront of molecular biology and genetics
  • C.R. Bard, Inc. - medical equipment and devices manufacturer
  • Davol - market leader in comprehensive soft tissue reconstruction
  • Dell EMC - provider of IT storage hardware solutions to promote data backup and recovery
  • Husky Injection Molding Systems, Ltd. - producer of injection molding equipment and services for the plastics industry
  • RPX Corporation - provider of patent risk solutions
  • Saint-Gobain S.A. - producer of construction and high-performance materials
  • Smith & Nephew - multinational medical equipment manufacturing company
  • Sony Corporation - manufacturer of audio, home video game consoles, communications, and key device and information technology products