Patent Litigation Strategy
The Post-Grant Review (PGR) was introduced as a counterpart to inter-partes review by the America Invents Act (AIA). They collectively replace inter partes re-examination to provide a more efficient and streamlined process for challenging the validity of a patent. PGR is available immediately after patent issuance, while inter partes review becomes available only after the period for post-grant review has passed. According to USPTO Post grant review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. Notably, as of September 16, 2012, the PGR became available for covered business method patents irrespective of their priority date. However, for technologies other than covered business methods, PGR is only available for patents with a priority date later than March 15, 2013.
Patent Litigation Strategy & Technical Advisory
Technical intelligence for patent litigation strategy
A stronger technical foundation for patent disputes, before and during litigation
IIPRD supports patent attorneys, litigation teams, and corporate in-house legal departments in assessing the technical and strategic dimensions of patent disputes. We provide technical, patent, product, and competitive intelligence that helps counsel evaluate a case, examining the asserted patents, accused technologies, prior art, prosecution history, and technical evidence, while counsel leads the legal strategy.
Technical intelligence, counsel-led strategy
We function as an extension of the legal team, providing the technical foundation while the responsible counsel retains control of legal strategy and decisions.
Technical foundation
Fact-based technical intelligence for the case:
- Technical & patent analysis
- Product & technology assessment
- Claim-to-product mapping
- Prior art & validity assessment
- Prosecution history analysis
- Technical evidence development
Legal strategy
The responsible attorney leads on:
- Litigation strategy
- Legal arguments
- Jurisdiction-specific decisions
- Filings & proceedings
- Case decisions
- Client advice
Six dimensions of a patent dispute
Patent disputes often involve complex technologies. We build the technical foundation by examining how the pieces connect, from the asserted claims to the supporting evidence.
The technical questions that decide cases
Structured analysis across the patent, the accused technology, prior art, and the evidence base.
Pre-litigation assessment
A fact-based technical read of the dispute before significant resources are committed.
Asserted patent analysis
Claims, specification, figures, family members, and prosecution events of the asserted rights.
Accused product assessment
Architecture, hardware, software functionality, standards, and implementation details.
Infringement & non-infringement
Claim-by-claim mapping, missing elements, technical distinctions, and both competing positions.
Validity & prior art assessment
Prior art, earlier disclosures, and claim-level prior art mapping where required.
Prosecution history & evidence
Amendments, arguments, and a structured technical evidence base from multiple sources.
Where the technical risk lives
We help counsel weigh the technical strengths and weaknesses so the team can prioritize the issues that matter most.
From the dispute to a strategy input
Seven steps that turn a complex technical picture into structured analysis counsel can act on.
Understand the dispute
Review the asserted patents, parties, accused products, technology, and key issues from counsel.
Analyze the technical landscape
Study the relevant technology, products, standards, patents, and technical disclosures.
Assess the patent
Examine claims, specification, prosecution history, family members, and relevant prior art.
Assess the accused technology
Investigate product architecture and functionality and identify relevant technical evidence.
Identify key issues
Highlight infringement, non-infringement, validity, evidence, and prosecution-history issues.
Develop technical analysis
Provide structured analysis, mappings, evidence summaries, and other agreed deliverables.
Support litigation strategy
Findings are provided to counsel for integration into the broader legal and litigation strategy.
Extra technical capacity for disputes
We work as specialized technical support for the teams running the case.
Corporate in-house legal teams
Additional technical resources for pre-litigation assessment, product and infringement analysis, validity, and evidence, functioning as an extension of the internal IP team while counsel retains control.
Patent litigation law firms
Specialized technical and patent analysis on specific tasks or throughout a matter: case assessment, claim mapping, prior art, prosecution history, and expert support.
A stronger technical foundation for disputes
Patent litigation often depends on understanding complex technology, claim scope, product functionality, prior art, prosecution history, and evidence. We supply that technical intelligence.
Patent + technology expertise
Patent analysis combined with engineering and technology-domain expertise.
Litigation-focused analysis
Work structured around the technical questions that matter in patent disputes.
Global support
Support for litigation teams and corporate IP departments across jurisdictions.
Evidence-based approach
Analysis grounded in patent records, prosecution history, and technical documents.
Flexible engagement
Support for a specific task, a pre-litigation assessment, or a full dispute lifecycle.
Counsel-led engagement
We provide the technical foundation; your counsel retains legal strategy and decisions.