Source: https://wolfgreenfield.com/services/post-grant-proceedings?pgn=4&pl=newstab
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:51:04+00:00

Document:
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.
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 precedential Federal Circuit decision confirming Board’s authority to issue adverse judgment for pre-trial disclaimer of claims: Our client, Smith & Nephew, Inc., filed an IPR petition against claims of a competitor’s patent asserted against Smith & Nephew in related litigation. Rather than substantively respond to the petition, the competitor disclaimed its claims and requested that the proceeding be terminated by simply denying institution. While the Board had done just that in identical circumstances several times before, we argued that the proceeding should instead be terminated by entering adverse judgment against the patent owner, which would trigger a patent owner estoppel provision that would prevent the patent owner from obtaining patentably indistinct claims in its pending continuation applications. The Board agreed and granted adverse judgement. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, finding that it had authority to issue the adverse judgment even though the competitor disclaimed claims prior to an institution decision.
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.
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.
Waymo - autonomous car development company and subsidiary of Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc.
Patexia is an intellectual property community and information service. Its IPR Intelligence Report ranked the top 50 law firms and attorneys in terms of IPR activity and performance, out of 1,116 firms and 5,050 attorneys in the United States. The report was based on an analysis of all 7,751 IPR challenges filed from July 1, 2013 to the first half of 2018.
Download our Post-Grant Q&A booklet here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §112