In patent litigation, invalidity arguments are formal statements by the party asserting invalidity of a patent, stating the basis upon which a patent ought to be held invalid. Invalidity arguments play an important role in developing a solid defense and informing strategy in a litigation case. Best practices involve good research, comprehensive claim charts, and compliance with local patent rules. A well-crafted invalidity contention can flip the case in a legal fight, either by undermining the plaintiff's case or by having the potential to knock the patent out. There are some key practices that experienced professionals depend upon when constructing a good invalidity defense.

Patent Litigation early assessment is key

As soon as a company gets word that it's facing a charge of patent infringement, it is essential to start scrutinizing the asserted patent immediately. The earlier you do this, the more likely you will be able to identify strong, relevant prior art and craft your legal arguments around it. At this point, get comfortable with the claims in question - most specifically the broader claims, since these are more susceptible to attacks on validity. It also assists in having technical experts early, particularly those who have experience in the particular industry or technology in question.

Understanding the claims

Knowing what the patent claims is the foundation of any argument of invalidity. Judges examine how each term of the claims should be construed, and so should you. Read the whole patent, including background, examples, and how the inventor explained the invention. You may identify phrases open to several meanings or learn that the breadth of the claims is more limited than it appeared at first glance. Strong invalidity arguments are founded on sound interpretations - broad and narrow - so they can stand regardless of how the court interprets the claims.

Use Prior Art Strategically

The core of any invalidity defense is to locate and employ prior art - publicly disclosed papers or technologies that demonstrate the invention as claimed was already known or obvious at filing. This can be prior patents, technical publications, standards documents, product manuals, or even previous versions of a product.

Advanced Search Techniques

When looking for prior art, don't just look for keyword searches. Use different tools, including classification codes, citation chains, and semantic search platforms. Often, the most valuable prior art doesn’t use the same language as the patent you’re analyzing. Also, remember that multiple references can be combined to make an obviousness argument. One file could display some of the invention, and another could display the remainder, with a simple explanation as to why a person skilled in the art would combine them.

Quality over Quantity

It is tempting to put all possible arguments in an invalidity argument, but sometimes less is more. Prioritize the strongest and clearest arguments. Is there one earlier piece of prior art that reveals all elements of the claim? That's perfect for an anticipation argument. Are there two or three references that, together, demonstrate the same concept? That's a solid foundation for obviousness. Hold to what can be substantiated with clear, specific evidence - lacking or speculative arguments rarely make it in court.

Way Forward

Invalidity arguments are an integral component of patent litigation strategy. When done properly, they can nullify even the strongest-looking patent claims. But it's not a checkbox exercise - it requires time, attention, and profound technical and legal sophistication. By getting an early start, knowing the claims, keeping an eye on high-quality prior art, and collaborating with experienced experts, defendants can assemble a strong argument that a patent merely doesn't merit the legal protection it seeks. In contemporary high-stakes patent cases, a clever invalidity strategy can prove to be the difference-maker.

About Effectual Services

We have experience in supporting law firms in drafting and reviewing Infringement Contentions. As required by the local court rules a party claiming patent infringement has to serve on all parties a Disclosure of Infringement Contentions aat the time specified in the local court rules and such disclosure should contain a claim chart. We provide court ready claim charts identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each of the Accused Instrumentality.