The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides invalidity tools via inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), but which route is better? … PGRs are estimated to cost more because of their broader discovery rules. If cost is a major factor, IPRs are a less-expensive option due to restricted allowance of discovery, the most expensive aspect of patent litigation… If the invalidating arguments or art are not strong, an IPR may be a better option due to its lower threshold for institution. The same prior art arguments that failed in a petition for a PGR may have succeeded in an IPR petition due to the lower standard.
The post Which Invalidity Avenue to Take: Inter Partes Review Verses Post-Grant Review appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- U.S. Government’s Intervention in Patent Case Signals Good News for Patent Owners Seeking Injunctions
- Gaming Patent Litigation on Both Sides of the ‘v’ | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Recentive Rehearing Petition Challenges CAFC’s Broad Section 101 Exclusion of Machine Learning Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process