Overview
We recognize PTAB litigation is an integral part of high-stakes patent infringement disputes that often have millions of dollars and the right to use important technology at stake.
We understand the concerns of defendants potentially facing large damage awards or not being able to use an important technology. Defendants should always consider PTAB validity challenges as part of their overall litigation strategy.
We understand the concerns of patent owners facing the potential invalidation of their patents and resulting loss of market share, royalties, or damages awards. Patent owners need to have a strategy for withstanding PTAB validity challenges to successfully enforce their patents.
To combat these concerns, our clients from various industries, including medical devices, electrical and computer devices, computer software, pharmaceuticals, biotech, and life sciences, rely on Knobbe Martens for PTAB litigation.
Clients gain a distinct advantage from working with our team that understands the complexities of patent law and technology, has a proven track record of success, and delivers favorable outcomes that far exceed the industry average.
Our experience representing both patent owners and petitioners makes us highly effective advocates. We have successfully represented petitioners and patent owners in hundreds of PTAB litigation matters, including inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) reviews. We’re known for handling and winning heavily litigated and technologically complicated PTAB proceedings.
Our team’s in-depth understanding of the PTAB and its pros and cons allows us to provide strategic advice to clients on how to use PTAB cases within a broader litigation strategy. We effectively handle every stage of PTAB litigation, aided by our deep bench of experienced litigators and appellate advocates, including former clerks at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Awards
- Ranked Tier 1 Nationwide for Litigation – Intellectual Property” in 2024, U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”
- Recognized Nationally and Regionally in 2024 for PTAB Litigation, Managing IP (MIP) “IP STARS”
- Ranked Tier 1 for Intellectual Property Litigation Nationwide in 2025 edition of Benchmark Litigation “USA Guide”
- Ranked a 2024 Leading Law Firm in California and Seattle for Litigation, Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) “Patent 1000”
- Ranked Nationally in 2024 for Patent Litigation and Trademarks (Litigation), The Legal 500
- Recognized Nationally in 2024 for Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Patent Litigation, Legal Media Group (LMG) “Life Sciences”
- Named a Litigation “Standout” in the 2025 edition of BTI Litigation Outlook
- Recognized for an Impact Case of the Year at 2024 LMG Americas Life Sciences Awards
Representative Experience
PTAB Appeals
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.
Represented the patent owner in obtaining a rare IPR victory of a PTAB final written decision and Federal Circuit precedential affirmance of the decision upholding the validity of all challenged claims from a patent directed to DNA sequencing-by-synthesis.
Amazon.com v. Personalized Media Communications
Represented Amazon in filing seven IPR petitions challenging patents asserted in litigation and obtaining final written decisions invalidating all seven patents. On appeal, represented Amazon in the two cases appealed by the patent owner in which it unsuccessfully sought to amend the claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed both decisions denying the amendments.
Redline Detection, LLC v. Star EnviroTech, Inc.
Represented the patent owner in successfully defending a patent in IPR and becoming one of only a small percentage of patent holders to survive an IPR with all claims intact. Also represented the patent owner in the Federal Circuit appeal, which affirmed the judgment in a 33-page precedential decision.
Stephenson v. Game Show Network
Represented the petitioner, Game Show Network, in challenging a patent directed to computer gaming tournaments and obtaining a PTAB finding that all 19 claims were unpatentable, a decision summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Assa Abloy AB
Successfully represented the petitioner, Spectrum Brands, in obtaining a final written decision after a full trial canceling 16 patent claims relating to electronic locks asserted by a competitor in litigation. Represented Spectrum Brands on appeal to the Federal Circuit, winning summary affirmance of the PTAB’s decision.
Petitioner Representation
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc. (IPR)
Represented the petitioner in strategically filing 16 IPRs and two ex parte reexaminations as part of a defensive litigation strategy in a dispute relating to patient-specific instruments for knee replacement surgery. Following a full PTAB trial, we successfully obtained a final written decision cancelling all patent claims in the patent owner’s foundational patent. Following that success and another full PTAB trial, we obtained the same result on a related patent.
Ranbaxy v. Vertex Pharms, Inc. (IPR)
Represented Ranbaxy in one of the first IPR proceedings challenging a patent relating to fosamprenavir (the active ingredient in ViiV’s Lexiva® product) and achieved a favorable case-dispositive settlement for the client after institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com v. Personalized Media Communications (IPR)
Represented Amazon in filing seven IPR petitions challenging patents asserted in litigation and obtaining final written decisions invalidating all seven patents.
Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Assa Abloy AB
Successfully represented the petitioner, Spectrum Brands, in obtaining a final written decision after a full trial canceling 16 patent claims relating to electronic locks asserted by a competitor in litigation, a decision summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Game Show Network v. Stephenson
Represented the petitioner, Game Shown Network, in challenging a patent directed to computer gaming tournaments and obtaining a PTAB finding that all 19 claims were unpatentable, a decision summarily affirmed on appeal.
Patent Owner Representation
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc. (IPR)
Represented Illumina in an IPR proceeding defending a patent directed to noninvasive prenatal screening methods and successfully obtained a rare final written decision after a full trial upholding the validity of all challenged claims.
BioGatekeeper, Inc. v. Kyoto University (IPR)
Represented Kyoto University in defending against an IPR petition regarding a patent co-invented by Nobel Prize laureate, Professor Shinya Yamanaka, directed to induced pluripotent stem cells. Obtained a decision denying the institution and rejecting the challenge raised against the university’s patent.
ResMed Ltd. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (IPR)
Represented Fisher & Paykel in defending against an IPR petition regarding a patent relating to CPAP technology. Obtained a decision denying petition and rejecting all challenges raised against Fisher & Paykel’s patent claims.
Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IPR)
Successfully defended a patent by achieving a rare victory of convincing the PTAB to uphold the validity of all 20 challenged claims after a full trial. The petitioner did not appeal, and an inter partes review certificate was issued confirming the challenged claims. In related proceedings, IPR2014-00536 and IPR2014-00537, we successfully defended the patents by persuading the PTAB not to institute IPR proceedings in the first instance, and in IPR2014-00787, we prevailed after a full trial in validating challenged claims.
Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions (IPR)
Successfully defended the patent owner by protecting all claims in all patents asserted in litigation relating to integrated circuits by defeating three separate IPR petitions, including obtaining an extraordinary judgment upholding the validity of all claims in instituted IPR proceedings after a full trial.
Roche Molecular Systems Inc. v. Illumina, Inc. (IPR)
Defended Illumina against an IPR petition regarding a patent for noninvasive prenatal screening methods. Obtained a decision denying the petition and rejecting all challenges raised against Illumina’s claims.
Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (IPR)
Defended Illumina against IPR petitions regarding a patent directed to DNA sequencing-by-synthesis. Obtained decisions denying petitions and rejecting all challenges raised against Illumina’s claims.
Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services (IPR)
Successfully defended Nobel Biocare in a challenge to a pioneering medical device patent for dental implants by defeating the institution of an IPR petition brought by a competitor that was filed after the patent had been found infringed in a co-pending ITC action.
Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc. (IPR)
Represented the patent owner in successfully defending the challenged patents by convincing the PTAB not to institute any IPR proceedings. In a fourth proceeding, IPR2016-01568, the petitioner withdrew the petition after receiving our preliminary response.
International Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IPR)
Successfully defended a patent by convincing the PTAB to not institute the IPR proceedings and rejecting all challenges raised against the claims.
CBM Reviews
Commvault Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC (CBM)
Represented the petitioner in filing an IPR and CBM petition challenging the patentability of a data compression patent asserted in litigation. In response, the patent owner voluntarily canceled 23 of its patent claims and IPR proceedings were instituted on all remaining claims.
Motorola Mobility LLC, v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (CBM)
Successfully defended a patent by convincing the PTAB not to institute the CBM proceeding and rejecting all challenges raised against the patent.
Game Show Network v. Bally Gaming (CBM)
Represented the petitioner in obtaining an institution of a CBM petition on all challenged claims of a gaming patent where others had failed. The case settled thereafter.
Great West Casualty Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC (CBM)
Successfully defended a patent by convincing the PTAB not to institute a CBM proceeding.
Shoutpoint and Victory Solutions v. Broadnet Teleservices (CBM)
Successfully represented the defendant in a long-running patent case related to teleconferencing technology. The case settled soon after the defendant/petitioner filed two CBM petitions challenging the asserted patents in the Patent Office.
Reexamination and Interferences
National Institutes of Health
Knobbe Martens successfully represented the National Institutes of Health in a lengthy and complex patent interference regarding the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, now marketed by Merck as Gardisil®.
Johnson Safety, Inc.
The firm successfully defended Johnson Safety in an inter partes reexamination proceeding in front of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Johnson Safety manufactures audio and video equipment and Audiovox Corporation requested an inter partes reexamination of a Johnson Safety patent on a mobile video system. The firm’s representation in the reexamination resulted in a confirmation by the Examiner that all claims in the patent are valid. The Examiner’s decision is currently being appealed by the requester.
Kontron America, Inc.
The firm represented Kontron America in litigation and successfully requested an inter partes reexamination of the patent asserted against Kontron in federal court. Kontron designs and manufactures embedded computer systems in Europe, America, and Asia. Epicenter alleged that Kontron infringed Epicenter’s patent on a computer control switching system. In 2006, Kontron was able to successfully secure a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination. During reexamination, the examiner’s rejection based on grounds cited by the firm forced Epicenter to submit narrowing amendments of the patent.
Romer, Inc.
The firm successfully defended Romer in an ex parte reexamination proceeding in front of the PTO. Romer, a Hexagon Metrology Company, manufactures innovative portable metrology solutions to customers worldwide. Faro Technologies requested an ex parte reexamination of a Romer patent on a spatial coordinate measuring device. The firm’s successful representation in the reexamination resulted in the USPTO’s confirmation that all claims in the patent are valid.
DexCom, Inc.
DexCom, a leader in continuous glucose monitoring systems, was successfully defended by the firm in numerous ex parte reexamination proceedings before the USPTO. Abbott Diabetes Care requested ex parte reexaminations of DexCom patents directed to membranes for use in implantable sensors, devices and methods for determining analyte levels in vivo, and systems and methods for processing analyte sensor data. The ex parte reexaminations were successfully concluded with the USPTO’s confirmation of the patentability of claims.