A System Prior art is different than other non-patent literature as it speaks for its authenticity. Such a reference provides a proof that the claimed technology was in practice before the critical date.

With extensive searching in product catalogs, user manuals, news articles, trade show/exhibition websites, or on YouTube product review videos – the evidence to support the presence of required features can be identified.

If that doesn’t work – we can also do offline research, for example – in books, printed tech magazines, catalogues etc. And even can reach out to people with relevant experience – for example, manufactures, developers, who have seen the entire evolution of the products over the years and may have useful information on the required concept. In fact, people who may have now shifted their career in another domain can also be valuable sources of information, as their experience goes back much further than current tech players!

Potentially, every patent can be invalidated on grounds of Prior Art

It is common to come across existing & granted 3rd party patents where the owner of the patent makes infringement complaints. One of the key strategies to follow apart from gathering opinion on non-infringement is to find out evidence that holds against the validity of these 3rd party patents. In other words, some circumstances require extensive and thorough search for locating prior art that can nullify the claims of the blocking patent.

Engage us on such complex evidence gathering tasks where we can assist you with extremely thorough & in-depth searches to locate invalidating prior art. We have consistently assisted US, European and Japanese Attorneys in finding evidence of prior disclosure for inventions. Many of our clients (litigation attorneys) are working with us on contingency basis with their clients and frequently engage us on Invalidation assignments.

After the search we do meaningful documentation of results and our analysis includes the technical grounds on which we find the prior art to be relevant against the validity of the claims.

——- Engage us on such complex evidence gathering tasks where we can assist you with extremely thorough & in-depth searches to locate invalidating prior art. We have consistently assisted US, European and Japanese Attorneys in finding evidence of prior disclosure for inventions. Many of our clients (litigation attorneys) are working with us on contingency basis with their clients and frequently engage us on Invalidation assignments.

After the search we do meaningful documentation of results and our analysis includes the technical grounds on which we find the prior art to be relevant against the validity of the claims.

Finding evidence to nullify the claim of novelty and inventive step

This type of search helps you to discover important prior art that can be used when filing for an opposition or a request for revocation of a right. At GreyB we search international patent databases and non- patent literature data sources to find prior evidence against the subject-matter of one or more of the claims. Along with relevant references, the scope of the search includes the references which in combination can challenge the validity of the patent. To make our reports meaningful, we chart the exact evidence of the claims in the prior art to make a case of opposition.

ITC Section 337 is part of the Patent Litigation practice. Comparatively stringent and with a speedy action process, if infringement is proved, the accused products could be barred from being imported into the US.

So what are the options you have, when ITC infringement is proved without getting the Product Banned?

Invalidate the patent.

Yes, invalidating a patent could put an end to all your woes. When you’re faced with ITC litigation and there is a lot to lose, the best bet would be to find available prior art for asserted patent and prove the patent invalid.

We at GreyB understand the intricacies involved in ITC cases and have worked on complex ITC section 337 patent infringement cases, assisting the defendants. Here are three such instances where we conducted validity searches using unconventional strategies to find prior art for patents in question.

An attorney fighting a litigation suit is not unlike a soldier on a battlefield. The soldier equipped with sniper or high-tech weapons could give a deadly blow to the enemy, however, that’s not enough. He also requires something to defend himself, and most importantly, a devised strategy to conquer at any cost.

An attorney, challenging the validity of a patent at Inter Partes Review – on behalf of his/her client – faces the same challenge nonetheless. Having a Tier-I reference is not always enough. To make the case stronger, it has to be looked into from every search angle. Besides, the attorney would also have to figure which elements in the claim appear weak, and how the supporting references can suffice the loopholes of the primary one, ensuring success in the pursuit.

In our decade of experience serving clients from various domains, we have experienced this first hand and have tried to incorporate the practice into our daily work. Thus, while finding bang-on prior art that can knock-off the target patent is our primary goal, we also try to find supporting prior art and documents in alternative domains which can assist our clients in building strong arguments when it comes to litigation proceedings.

Be thorough and confident before claiming infringement

This type of search is conducted on your patent to be aware of important hidden prior art that can potentially create invalidity issues before claiming infringement or a transaction. You can commission GreyB for an international prior art search to locate the references that either unaccompanied or in combination can challenge the validity of the patent.