• Share
  • Email
  • Print
In 2013, the National Law Journal named our practice to its “IP Hot List” of the top practices in the U.S.

K&L Gates, with top patent prosecution and litigation practices, is uniquely positioned to handle all aspects of patent office litigation.

Our 100 registered patent lawyers and agents and 80 patent litigators possess the requisite technical and trial experience to effectively represent clients in both the newly established and traditional proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office and abroad, including:

  • Inter partes review
  • Post-grant review
  • Covered business methods
  • Ex parte reexamination
  • Derivation (and interference)
  • Non-US patent opposition and nullity

Over the last several decades, the trend among law firms has been to choose between prosecution and litigation, but very few do both. K&L Gates’ practice was built to leverage the benefits of a combined prosecution-based and litigation-based practice to benefit from the numerous intersections of both areas of experience.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) solidifies the importance of patent office litigation as part of a comprehensive intellectual property strategy. K&L Gates has over 100 registered patent attorneys and agents, many with substantial trial experience, ready to assist in the trial proceedings created by the AIA.

Our attorneys have also prepared countless requests that were never filed, but were instead used as part of a comprehensive litigation strategy to achieve favorable results for our clients.

K&L Gates also understands worldwide intellectual property laws and procedures. For example, our attorneys understand the interplay and differences between a U.S. reexamination proceeding and an EPO opposition, and can anticipate the intricacies involved in simultaneous proceedings in these forums. Our global platform provides an integrated solution to protect and defend intellectual property worldwide.

NameTitleOfficeContact
Partner
P +1.206.370.7653
Practice Area Leader - Intellectual Property
P +1.312.807.4204
Partner
P +1.312.807.4438
Partner
P +1.312.807.4310
Associate
P +1.312.807.4436
Partner
P +1.412.355.6423
Partner
P +1.617.261.3276
Partner
P +852.2230.3566
Patent Attorney
P +61.2.9513.2497
Partner
P +1.617.261.3121
Partner
P +1.312.807.4214
Partner
P +1.617.261.3178
Associate
P +1.312.807.4311
Partner
P +1.312.578.5415
Partner
P +1.412.355.6785
Senior Associate and Patent Attorney
P +61.3.9205.2062
Partner
P +1.412.355.8303
Partner
P +1.312.807.4236
Partner
P +1.617.261.3189
Partner
P +61.3.9640.4375
Associate
P +1.412.355.8690
Partner
P +1.212.536.3910
Associate
P +1.312.807.4240
Partner
P +1.650.798.6719
Associate
P +1.312.807.4325
Mutual Fund Division Manager
P +886.2.2326.5194
Partner
P +1.206.370.7605
Associate
P +1.312.807.4315
Partner
P +1.412.355.6342
Partner
P +1.412.355.8696
Partner
P +1.312.807.4294
Partner
P +1.412.355.6271
Partner
P +61.2.9513.2484
Associate
P +1.312.807.4329
Associate
P +1.312.807.4335
Partner
P +1.412.355.6334
Special Counsel
P +61.2.9513.2440
Partner
P +61.2.9513.2428
Associate
P +1.312.807.4280
Counsel
P +81.3.6205.3609
Senior Associate
P +61.2.9513.2431
Associate
P +1.312.807.4203
Associate
P +1.617.951.9074
Partner
P +1.212.536.4074
Partner
P +1.214.939.5567
Counsel
P +1.617.261.3258
Lawyer
P +61.2.9513.2323
Special Counsel
P +61.2.9513.2437
Partner
P +1.617.261.3148
Associate
P +1.312.807.4301
Partner
P +1.412.355.6766
Partner
P +1.617.261.3150
Practice Area Leader - Intellectual Property
P +61.3.9640.4331
Partner
P +1.312.781.7166
Associate
P +1.949.623.3575
Lawyer
P +61.2.9513.2539
Partner
P +61.3.9205.2147
Showing 1-10 of 40 results
1 | 2 | 3 | 4   Next >
Inter Partes Review
LKQ Corporation v. Clearlamp, LLC (Case No. IPR2013-00020); filed 10/17/2012; instituted 3/29/2013; oral argument held 1/2/2014; final decision issued 3/27/14, finding all independent claims unpatentable; PTAB decision affirmed by Federal Circuit  2/18/2015
McClinton Energy Group, LLC v. Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. (Case No. IPR2013-00231); filed 4/2/2013; instituted 9/23/2013; oral argument held 5/8/2014; final decision issued 9/2/14, finding all twenty claims unpatentable; request for rehearing denied 10/29/2014; patent owner’s appeal to Federal Circuit pending
MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc. (Case No. IPR2013-00267); filed 5/6/2013; instituted 11/1/2013; oral argument held 8/6/2014; final decision issued 10/30/2014, finding all challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner did not appeal; certificate cancelling claims 1-7 issued 3/23/2015
MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc. (Case No. IPR2013-00268); filed 5/6/2013 [motion to amend granted 2/18/2014, cancelling eight challenged claims]; instituted 11/1/2013; oral argument held 8/6/2014; final decision issued 10/30/14, finding all remaining challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner’s appeal to Federal Circuit pending
MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc. (Case No. IPR2013-00270); filed 5/6/2013; iled 5/6/2013 [motion to amend granted 2/18/2014, cancelling one challenged claim; instituted 11/1/2013]; oral argument held 8/6/2014; final decision issued 10/30/14, finding all remaining challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner’s appeal to Federal Circuit pending
MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc. (Case No. IPR2013-00272); filed 5/8/2013 [motion to amend granted 2/18/2014, cancelling two challenged claims]; instituted 11/1/2013; oral argument held 8/6/2014; final decision issued 10/30/14, finding all remaining challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner did not appeal; certificate cancelling claims 1-16 issued 3/23/2015
MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc. (Case No. IPR2013-00274); filed 5/8/2013; instituted 11/1/2013; oral argument held 8/6/2014; final decision issued 10/30/14; finding all challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner’s appeal to Federal Circuit pending
JDS Uniphase Corporation v. Fiber, LLC (Case No. IPR2013-00318); filed 6/4/2013; instituted 12/6/2013; oral argument held 9/9/2014; final decision issued 12/5/2014, finding majority of challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner did not appeal
JDS Uniphase Corporation v. Fiber, LLC (Case No. IPR2013-00336); filed 6/7/2013; instituted 12/6/2013; oral argument held 9/9/2014; final decision issued 12/5/2014, finding majority of challenged claims unpatentable; patent owner did not appeal
Archer Daniels Midland Company v. ConAgra Food Ingredients Company, Inc.(Case No. IPR2014-00592); filed 4/8/2014; instituted 9/9/2014