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
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, September 6: House Version of PERA Introduced; Judicial Council Confirms Extension of Newman Suspension; OpenAI Asks Court to Dismiss Claims and Focus on Fair Use in Copyright Battle
- How to Satisfy Constitutional and Statutory Standing Requirements in Patent Infringement Actions
- Book Publishers Win at Second Circuit: Internet Archive’s Free Library is Not Fair Use
- Trump Ordered to Halt Use of Isaac Hayes Song
- SoftView Petitions Full Federal Circuit to Rehear Decision on Patentee Estoppel at USPTO