PTAB Trials

Click here to view our PTAB Trials professionals

The America Invents Act (AIA) created several proceedings for challenging patent validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings, which are held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), include inter partes review (IPR), post‑grant review (PGR), and the transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM).

MBHB attorneys are uniquely qualified to handle proceedings before the PTAB. Indeed, not only do our attorneys have extensive litigation experience and comprehensive knowledge of the underlying technologies, but we also interact with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on a daily basis. Moreover, we have decades of experience handling cases before the PTAB and its predecessor, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. With this specialized blend of skills, we know exactly what it takes to represent clients in all aspects of PTAB proceedings— from pre-institution strategy through oral hearing (and beyond).

Our attorneys are also dedicated to monitoring the latest developments at the PTAB, which puts us in the best possible position to educate and advise our clients on this quick-paced alternative to district court patent litigation. The News & Events and Publications tabs contain presentations and articles we have authored on topics relating to PTAB litigations.

Please join our PTABTrials group on LinkedIn for the latest information on IPRs, PGRs, CBMs and CAFC appeals relating to these PTAB trial proceedings.

P: 312.913.2104
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3330
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3352
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3369
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3315
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3360
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3331
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2122
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3380
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2112
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3372
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3302
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2145
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2118
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.2119
F: 312.913.0002
Of Counsel
P: 312.913.3384
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3300
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.935.2379
F: 312.913.0002
P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002

Upcoming Events

February 8, 2018
MBHB Partner Kirsten Thomson is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop
March 8, 2018
MBHB Attorney Aaron Gin, Ph.D. is the Featured Presenter at this MATTER Sponsored Workshop

Past Event

January 17, 2018
MBHB Partners Michael Borella, Ph.D., Kevin Noonan, Ph.D., and Donald Zuhn, Jr., Ph.D., Are Featured Presenters
December 7, 2017
MBHB Partner Dr. Andrew Williams Is a Featured Panelist
October 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Anthoula Pomrening and Marcus Thymian Are the Featured Speakers for this Program
October 20, 2017
MBHB Partner Alison Baldwin Is a Featured Speaker
October 17, 2017
MBHB Attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters


Fall 2017 (snippets)
With the rise of the legalized cannabis industry, there is also a rise in legal questions about how to protect the cannabis-related inventions being developed by the industry. Many practitioners do not appreciate that there are three different statutory mechanisms in the United States to protect plant-related inventions.
Fall 2017 (snippets)
With respect to patent litigation one thing is true – it can be very expensive. This expense is often viewed as a barrier to patent owners enforcing their patent rights and properly protecting their inventions and the products they cover, particularly for smaller companies in smaller economic markets.
Fall 2017 (snippets)
The U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the past term handed down a decision, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., that greatly expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
October 5, 2017
MBHB snippets Alert - October 5, 2017

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the patentability of the amended claims on the patent owner. This should result in more claim amendments being allowed in such proceedings, and it also opens the possibility that more motions to amend will be filed. However, this decision is unlikely to be the panacea hoped for by patent owners.
September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
With cannabis policy reform and legalization continuing to gain momentum nationwide and internationally, the “Green Rush” is well underway. For companies and entrepreneurs entering this industry, comprehensive intellectual property (“IP”) protection is vital for their developing cannabis brands and inventions.
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Added to queue
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.