• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patent
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Application
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademark
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Advantages of an IPR for defendants

Advantages of an IPR for defendants

August 24, 2015 by James Yang

IPRadvantagesBottom line: For parties accused of patent infringement an IPR (inter partes review) for the reasons below is an attractive alternative to full-blown litigation for attacking the validity of a patent.

  1. Amendments to the claims are limited to one with any further amendments being only by petition. The patent owner must show why the amended claims are patentable over the cited references regardless of when the reference was brought to light by the patent owner.  Microsoft v. Proxyconn (Fed. Cir. 2015).   These explanations provide potential means of avoiding patent infringement by redesigning products.
  2. Claims during an IPR are given their broadest reasonable interpretations, not so in litigation. The broader the interpretation, the more likely the patent will be deemed not patentable.
  3. The burden of proving invalidity is by a preponderance of the evidence, just over 50% whereas in court the patent is presumed valid unless shown otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
  4. Costs are far less expensive than a lawsuit.

In Proxyconn, Microsoft (MSFT) instituted an IPR challenging Proxyconn’s patent.  The Patent Trademark Appeal Board (PTAB) construed certain claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.  However, the Court held that the PTAB’s constructions of the claim language were unreasonably broad.  The court reiterated that the broadest reasonable interpretation may be broad but it does have its limits.

Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the definition given a term or phrase cannot be legally incorrect or divorced from the specification.  In this case, the Court looked to the claims and the specification to define the terms at issue.  The claims themselves and the specification indicate the meaning that the claim terms and phrases should have.  One cannot stray away from the context in which a claim term or phrase is used and label that the broadest reasonable interpretation.  Despite the narrowing of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule, IPRs are still an attractive option than litigation.

To provide context to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, it is good to know how this standard is treated during prosecution.  During patent prosecution, when claim terms and phrases are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, it is common to not argue with the interpretation ascribed by the examiner but to rephrase the claim language to avoid such broad interpretations.

The reason is that the PTAB has given great deference to examiners because inventors and patent applicants are given an unlimited number of opportunities to amend the claims for clarification, at least during patent prosecution. If the term or phrase in a claim could be understood to have the broad meaning given by the examiner, then the courts and the PTAB generally require the patent applicant to clear up the language of the claims through an amendment during the prosecution of the patent.

But IPRs are different.  An IPR is a proceeding at the Patent Office before the PTAB wherein a third party challenges the validity of the patent based on a prior art printed reference.  The patent owner is given a single (1) opportunity to amend the claims to maintain the patentability of the claims being challenged.  After that, the patent owner carries a burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to any further amendments to the claims.  The patent applicant is not given an unfettered right to amend the claims.

Not only that, the PTAB has further required the patent owner to show that the amendments if granted is patentable (i.e., novel and nonobvious) over the prior art printed references for any reference known to the patent owner regardless of when the patent owner became aware of the prior art printed reference.  The burden is not on the petitioner of the IPR to show the unpatentability of the proposed new claims. Idle Free Systems Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, 2013 WL 5947697 (PTAB June 11, 2013).  Generally speaking, the more the patent applicant discusses the prior art to prove patentability, the more the claims are limited since the patent applicant must distinguish the claims from the cited prior art.  Each argument that the patent owner provides to distinguish the prior art is one more way that the defendant might use to avoid patent infringement by redesigning their product or by argument. This is another factor in favor of IPRs.

In Proxyconn, MSFT was successful in requesting the patent owner to grant the petition to institute the IPR with one or more prior art printed references, not including the DPR reference.  The DRP reference was introduced to the record after the initial request.  Proxyconn requested amendments to the claims but the amendments were denied because Proxyconn failed to carry its burden of proving patentability over the DRP reference.  Proxyconn had provided conclusory statements that the claim amendments were patentable over the prior art.  But this didn’t cut it for the PTAB, nor the Federal Circuit.  The patent owner must provide an explanation of why the claims are patentable over the DRP reference rather than merely provide conclusory statements so the PTAB and Court can evaluate whether the claims are in fact patentable over that reference.  Had Proxyconn provided reasons, these explanations could have allowed the PTAB to grant the petition to amend the claims a second time, but these explanations could also be used by the defendant to redesign its accused infringing product(s) to avoid patent infringement.  It is a double-edged sword.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Prosecution Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney