Patent Trial & Appeal Board
We are trial lawyers and technologists with a robust PTAB practice
We are pioneers in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Our PTAB practice draws from our attorneys’ experience since the beginning of AIA reviews at the PTAB, beginning with the very first Covered Business Method (CBM) petition filed under the AIA in September 2012. Our attorneys have handled well over 50 PTAB proceedings on behalf of Petitioners and Patent Owners. These proceedings involved diverse technologies ranging from optical transceivers, enterprise business software, digital content protection, image processing, mapping, pharmaceuticals, and methods to facilitate analysis of nucleic acid sequences.
The strength of our practice lies in our diverse courtroom experience coupled with the strong science and technology backgrounds of our lawyers. Our attorneys hold degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, molecular biology, chemical engineering, and biochemistry. As trial lawyers and technologists, we understand how to effectively advocate for our clients before PTAB panels. To learn more, please contact Lauren Robinson.
We also provide the following related services:
Patent Clearances & Freedom to Operate
We assist clients in evaluating and developing patent clearance strategies to eliminate competitor patents and clear a field of use for your product. We also execute such strategies, leveraging our deep bench of litigators and technologists to effectively advocate for our clients, including in multiple (and often concurrent) proceedings before the PTAB.
Federal Circuit Appeals
We are experienced advocates before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, where we have successfully defended a number of high-profile victories in PTAB proceedings. Most recently, we secured dismissal of two appeals and a mandamus petition that challenged the PTAB’s authority to deny institution of IPRs based on its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Representative Matters
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Ltd. On behalf of the technology transfer company of Tel Aviv University, one of Israel’s foremost universities, persuaded the Board to deny institution in all three IPRs filed by Cisco. These IPRs challenged three different patents related to optical network transceivers.
E&J Gallo Winery v. Vineyard Investigations. On behalf of the inventor Patent Owner, secured denial of institution in IPR of patent related to intelligent control of irrigation and chemical delivery in vineyards and fields.
Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc. On behalf of Petitioner, successfully advocated for inter partes review of a patent related to enrichment of target nucleic acids for sequencing. The Board instituted review, and ultimately the parties requested a joint dismissal of the IPR prior to the oral hearing based on settlement.
Unified Patents, Inc. v. Bridge and Post, Inc. On behalf of the inventor Patent Owner, secured denial of institution where Unified Patents challenged a patent related to targeted delivery of digital content.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. v. Bridge and Post, Inc. On behalf of the inventor Patent Owner, again persuaded the Board to deny institution of IPR for the same targeted content patent previously challenged by Unified Patents, this time based on a different challenge brought by Verizon.
Attorneys. Technologists. Trusted Advisors.
© 2020 Bunsow De Mory LLP
Attorney Advertising. Past results are not an indication of future performance.