## Inter Partes Review Petition for Patent Challenge

This is a sample inter partes review petition for a patent challenge. Please note that this is a sample document and should not be used without the advice of a qualified legal professional.

### 1. Introduction

This petition is filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. to request an inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. [Patent Number] (the "Patent"). The Patent claims a method for [Briefly describe the invention claimed in the patent]. Petitioner, [Your Full Name], believes that the Patent is unpatentable for the following reasons:

* The Patent claims are anticipated by prior art.
* The Patent claims are obvious in light of prior art.

### 2. Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Table of Contents
3. Petitioner
4. Patent
5. Prior Art
6. Grounds for Unpatentability
7. Request for Institution
8. Conclusion
9. Certificate of Service
10. Document

### 3. Petitioner

* **Name:** [Your Full Name]
* **Address:** [Your Address]
* **Phone Number:** [Your Phone Number]
* **Email Address:** [Your Email Address]
* **Attorney:** [Your Attorney's Name]
* **Attorney Address:** [Your Attorney's Address]
* **Attorney Phone Number:** [Your Attorney's Phone Number]
* **Attorney Email Address:** [Your Attorney's Email Address]

### 4. Patent

* **Patent Number:** [Patent Number]
* **Patent Title:** [Patent Title]
* **Patent Assignee:** [Patent Assignee]
* **Patent Filing Date:** [Patent Filing Date]
* **Patent Issue Date:** [Patent Issue Date]

### 5. Prior Art

The following prior art references are relevant to the grounds of unpatentability asserted in this petition:

* **Reference 1:** [Prior Art Reference 1 Title]
* **Reference 2:** [Prior Art Reference 2 Title]
* **Reference 3:** [Prior Art Reference 3 Title]

### 6. Grounds for Unpatentability

**6.1 Anticipation**

The Patent claims are anticipated by prior art reference [Prior Art Reference Number]. This prior art reference discloses all of the elements of the Patent claims, including [List the elements of the patent claims that are disclosed in the prior art reference]. Therefore, the Patent claims are not novel and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

**6.2 Obviousness**

The Patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references [Prior Art Reference Number] and [Prior Art Reference Number]. These prior art references disclose all of the elements of the Patent claims, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to arrive at the Patent claims. Therefore, the Patent claims are not inventive and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

### 7. Request for Institution

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institute an IPR of the Patent. Petitioner believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this petition.

### 8. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the PTAB institute an IPR of the Patent.

### 9. Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on [Date], I served a copy of this petition on the Patent Owner, [Patent Assignee], by [Method of Service].

### 10. Document

---

**Petition for Inter Partes Review**

**Case Name:** [Your Full Name] v. [Patent Assignee]

**Patent Number:** [Patent Number]

**Petitioner:**

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email Address]

**Attorney:**

[Your Attorney's Name]
[Your Attorney's Address]
[Your Attorney's Phone Number]
[Your Attorney's Email Address]

**Patent Owner:**

[Patent Assignee]
[Patent Assignee Address]
[Patent Assignee Phone Number]
[Patent Assignee Email Address]

**Introduction:**

This petition is filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. to request an inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. [Patent Number] (the "Patent"). The Patent claims a method for [Briefly describe the invention claimed in the patent]. Petitioner, [Your Full Name], believes that the Patent is unpatentable for the following reasons:

* The Patent claims are anticipated by prior art.
* The Patent claims are obvious in light of prior art.

**Prior Art:**

The following prior art references are relevant to the grounds of unpatentability asserted in this petition:

* **Reference 1:** [Prior Art Reference 1 Title]
* **Reference 2:** [Prior Art Reference 2 Title]
* **Reference 3:** [Prior Art Reference 3 Title]

**Grounds for Unpatentability:**

**Anticipation:**

The Patent claims are anticipated by prior art reference [Prior Art Reference Number]. This prior art reference discloses all of the elements of the Patent claims, including [List the elements of the patent claims that are disclosed in the prior art reference]. Therefore, the Patent claims are not novel and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

**Obviousness:**

The Patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references [Prior Art Reference Number] and [Prior Art Reference Number]. These prior art references disclose all of the elements of the Patent claims, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to arrive at the Patent claims. Therefore, the Patent claims are not inventive and are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

**Request for Institution:**

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institute an IPR of the Patent. Petitioner believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in this petition.

**Conclusion:**

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the PTAB institute an IPR of the Patent.

**Certificate of Service:**

I hereby certify that on [Date], I served a copy of this petition on the Patent Owner, [Patent Assignee], by [Method of Service].

**[Your Full Name]**
**[Your Attorney's Name]**

---

**Sources:**

* [United States Patent and Trademark Office](https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-review)
* [35 U.S. Code § 102](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/102)
* [35 U.S. Code § 103](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/103)

**TLDR:** This petition requests an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent, alleging that the patent claims are unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness in light of prior art.

**Conclusion:**

This petition is a sample document and should not be used without the advice of a qualified legal professional. The specific grounds for unpatentability and the prior art references will vary depending on the specific facts of the case. It is important to consult with an attorney to determine the best course of action for challenging a patent.


### Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Overview of Inter Partes Review (IPR)
3. Legal Framework for IPR in Kenya
4. Drafting an Inter Partes Review Petition
    1. Petitioner's Information
    2. Patent Information
    3. Grounds for Challenge
    4. Evidence and Supporting Documents
    5. Relief Sought
5. Relevant Case Laws
6. Conclusion
7. TLDR

---

### 1. Introduction

Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a legal procedure that allows a third party to challenge the validity of one or more claims in a granted patent. This process is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the patent system by ensuring that only patents that meet the statutory requirements of patentability are upheld. In Kenya, the legal framework for IPR is governed by the Industrial Property Act, 2001, and the regulations made thereunder.

### 2. Overview of Inter Partes Review (IPR)

IPR is a post-grant proceeding conducted before the Industrial Property Tribunal (IPT) in Kenya. It allows any person to challenge the validity of a patent on specific grounds, such as lack of novelty, non-obviousness, or insufficient disclosure. The process is designed to be faster and more cost-effective than traditional litigation.

### 3. Legal Framework for IPR in Kenya

The Industrial Property Act, 2001, and the Industrial Property Regulations, 2002, provide the legal basis for IPR in Kenya. Key provisions include:

- **Section 103**: Grounds for revocation of a patent.
- **Section 104**: Procedure for filing a petition for revocation.
- **Regulation 55**: Requirements for filing a petition for revocation.

### 4. Drafting an Inter Partes Review Petition

Below is a sample template for drafting an Inter Partes Review petition for a patent challenge in Kenya.

---

#### Petition for Inter Partes Review

---

**[Your Full Name]**  
**[Your Address]**  
**[City, Postal Code]**  
**[Email Address]**  
**[Phone Number]**

**Date:** [Date]

**To:**  
The Registrar,  
Kenya Industrial Property Institute,  
P.O. Box 51648-00200,  
Nairobi, Kenya.

---

**Subject:** Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. [Patent Number]

---

**1. Petitioner's Information**

- **Name:** [Your Full Name]
- **Address:** [Your Address]
- **Email:** [Your Email Address]
- **Phone Number:** [Your Phone Number]

**2. Patent Information**

- **Patent Number:** [Patent Number]
- **Title of the Patent:** [Title of the Patent]
- **Patent Owner:** [Name of the Patent Owner]
- **Date of Grant:** [Date of Grant]

**3. Grounds for Challenge**

The petitioner challenges the validity of Patent No. [Patent Number] on the following grounds:

- **Lack of Novelty:** The claimed invention is not new as it was anticipated by prior art. Specifically, [describe the prior art documents or references].
- **Non-Obviousness:** The claimed invention is obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of [describe the prior art documents or references].
- **Insufficient Disclosure:** The patent does not sufficiently disclose the invention in a manner that enables a person skilled in the art to carry it out.

**4. Evidence and Supporting Documents**

The petitioner submits the following evidence and supporting documents:

- **Exhibit A:** Copy of Patent No. [Patent Number].
- **Exhibit B:** Copies of prior art documents [list the documents].
- **Exhibit C:** Expert affidavit from [Name of Expert], detailing the lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
- **Exhibit D:** Technical analysis report on the insufficient disclosure.

**5. Relief Sought**

The petitioner requests the following relief:

- An order revoking Patent No. [Patent Number] in its entirety.
- Any other relief that the Tribunal deems just and equitable.

---

**Signature:**  
[Your Full Name]  
[Your Signature]

---

### 5. Relevant Case Laws

1. **Case: Republic v. Industrial Property Tribunal & Another Ex Parte Peter Odhiambo Aguko [2016] eKLR**
   - **Parties:** Peter Odhiambo Aguko (Petitioner) vs. Industrial Property Tribunal & Another (Respondents)
   - **Outcome:** The High Court quashed the decision of the Industrial Property Tribunal, emphasizing the need for fair hearing and proper consideration of evidence in IPR proceedings.
   - **Relevance:** This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and thorough evaluation of evidence in IPR petitions.

2. **Case: Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v. Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd [2014] eKLR**
   - **Parties:** Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd (Petitioner) vs. Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd (Respondent)
   - **Outcome:** The court upheld the revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and non-obviousness.
   - **Relevance:** This case illustrates the application of the grounds for revocation, particularly lack of novelty and non-obviousness, in IPR proceedings.

### 6. Conclusion

Filing an Inter Partes Review petition is a critical step in challenging the validity of a patent. It requires a thorough understanding of the legal grounds for revocation and the ability to present compelling evidence. By following the template provided and considering relevant case laws, petitioners can effectively navigate the IPR process in Kenya.

### 7. TLDR

To challenge a patent in Kenya, file an Inter Partes Review petition with the Kenya Industrial Property Institute, citing grounds such as lack of novelty, non-obviousness, and insufficient disclosure, supported by relevant evidence and documents.

---

Sources:
- [Kenya Industrial Property Act, 2001](http://www.kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/index.xql)
- [Kenya Law Reports](https://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=4013)
- [Republic v. Industrial Property Tribunal & Another Ex Parte Peter Odhiambo Aguko [2016] eKLR](https://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/12094)
- [Chemserve Cleaning Services Ltd v. Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd [2014] eKLR](https://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/182212)

Draft an inter partes review petition for a patent challenge

Ask a lawyer: Draft an inter partes review petition for a patent challenge

Ask a lawyer:
Draft an inter partes review petition for a patent challenge