Having handled well over 500 cases—inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method review (CBM)—before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including IPRs involving design patents and 60+ CBMs, we know our way around the PTAB’s unique procedures and potential pitfalls. There are many opportunities for a procedural misstep or strategic miscalculation. The administrative patent judges are patent attorneys with science and technology backgrounds. They can and often do get into the weeds about the patented technology, prior art, and PTAB procedures. A detailed understanding of both the technology and the law is essential when arguing before the Board. While we have been recognized as the most experienced firm in representing petitioners, a distinguishing feature of our practice is that we also devote a significant portion of our practice to defending patent owners. Our experience on both sides of the table allows us to be an objective resource for clients facing post-grant challenges.

Our close scrutiny of the rules, requirements, and nuances of each proceeding, as well as the PTAB’s evolving guidelines, allows us to counsel clients on the best tools for challenging the patents at issue, or likewise, fending off attacks. We approach cases with lean teams of attorneys that bring a mix of experience in the proceedings (including with nonpatentable subject matter challenges often brought in CBM proceedings), knowledge of the technology at issue, and experience briefing and arguing cases before the PTAB. This integrated, team approach has allowed Finnegan to provide effective, efficient representation of its clients in more than 60 CBMs, nearly 10 PGRs (relatively few have been filed), and well over 500 IPR proceedings.