Post Grant Proceedings

Overview

Post-grant proceedings have become an important element in patent and litigation strategy. Choate’s attorneys have considerable experience in front of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and its predecessors, representing clients in pursuit and defense Appeals, Interferences, Inter-Partes Review proceedings, and Post-Grant Review proceedings.

Our prosecution and litigation teams have developed a uniquely collaborative approach, invoked during dispute proceedings, that allows us to offer our clients “the best of both worlds” – management of contentious proceedings with a deeply sophisticated team steeped in technology, business, and the nuances of life in front of the Patent and Trademark Office.

Why Choate for Post Grant Proceedings?

Post Grant Proceedings Proof 4 Partner Named A “top 50 Women In Ptab Trials”

Post Grant Proceedings Proof 2 45+ Team Members With Phds & Other Advanced Degrees

Post Grant Proceedings Proof 1 Top 100 Most Active Firms Representing Petitioners

Post Grant Proceedings Proof 3 Experienced In 20+ Scientific And Tech Areas

MIM Software, Inc. v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and EXINI Diagnostics, IPR2025-00630, IPR2025-00725, IPR2025-00726, and IPR2025-00827, represented patent owners Progenics and EXINI in defending against inter partes review petitions filed by MIM Software challenging a subset of patents related to imaging technology. The petitions were filed in parallel with ongoing district court litigation. The PTAB has not yet issued a decision.
Sandoz, Inc. v. Biogen, PGR2022-00054, in conjunction with litigation represented Patent Owner Biogen in defense of its patent related to methods of treatment using Biogen’s MS drug, Tysabri® (natalizumab).
Triplet Therapeutics, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, PGR2021-00059, representing Patent Owner Louisiana State University and interested party Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. in defense of Louisiana State University’s patent directed to oligonucleotide compositions targeting the DNA mismatch repair system for the treatment of associated DNA repeat expansion diseases.
Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. v. Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Inc., PGR2021-00048, representing Patent Owner Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals in defense of its patent directed to methods for treating prostate cancer using compounds that bind prostate-specific membrane antigen.
Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc. et al. v. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, IPR2019-01609 and IPR2019-01610, represented Petitioner Central Security Group in challenging patents related to the use of SMS (short message service) messages and cellular networks to control and monitor environmental devices.
Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Kymab LTD, IPR2019-01577, IPR2019-01578, IPR2019-01579, and IPR2019-01580, and IPR2020-00389, represented Petitioner Regeneron in challenging patents directed to transgenic mice and methods of using transgenic mice.
Progenics Pharm., Inc. v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften E.V., et al., PGR2019-00052, represented Petitioner Progenics in challenging a patent directed to compounds for preparing radiolabeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-targeting conjugates.
Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Kymab LTD, IPR2019-01577, IPR2019-01578, IPR2019-01579, and IPR2019-01580, and IPR2020-00389, represented Petitioner Regeneron in challenging patents directed to transgenic mice and methods of using transgenic mice.
Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc., IPR2019-00130, IPR2019-00634, IPR2019-00636, IPR2019-00637, IPR2019-00652, and IPR2019-00653, in conjunction with litigation, represented Petitioner Foundation Medicine in challenging four patents relating to genomic cancer assays using next generation sequencing.
Kashiv BioSciences, LLC v. Amgen Inc., IPR2019-00791 and IPR2019-00797, in conjunction with litigation, represented Petitioner Kashiv in challenging patents related to methods of protein purification.
Alarm.com, et al. v. Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC, IPR2018-01001, represented Petitioner Alarm.com in challenging patent related to systems and methods for media content storage and delivery.