Ask a lawyer:
Draft an inter partes review petition for a patent challenge
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
Introduction
Table of Contents
Petitioner
Patent
Prior Art
Grounds for Unpatentability
Request for Institution
Conclusion
Certificate of Service
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:
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.
Answered by mwakili.com