Inter partes review (“IPR”) is limited to challenges on the bases of novelty and non-obviousness based on only patents and printed publications.  IPRs are an extremely effective alternative or supplement to litigation, and there are appreciable benefits to challenging an issued patent in an IPR rather than before a federal district court.  In an IPR, a challenged patent is not presumed to be valid, nor is clear and convincing evidence required to demonstrate invalidity.  Rather, the challenger (Petitioner) need only demonstrate invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence.  IPRs have some similarity to district court litigation in that both the Petitioner and Patent Owner are permitted to gather evidence (through written discovery and depositions), and the parties may present oral arguments to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Chris Blaszkowski has represented Patent Owners and Petitioners alike in post-grant proceedings such as IPRs.  His broad experience representing parties before federal district courts lends itself to the trial-like aspects of IPRs and makes him a natural choice for clients seeking to leverage or defend against an IPR.  Chris has guided clients through all aspects of post grant proceedings, including from the development of invalidity positions to the filing of the petition requesting post grant review, through discovery (including taking depositions of inventors and experts) and arguing the case to the PTAB.

Go back to Christopher’s professional page.