BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month February 25, 2026 @ 1:00 PM E.T.
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Patent
  • schedule 90 minutes

Back to the Future: Patent Reexamination as a PTAB Alternative

BarbriPdBannerMessage

About the Course

Introduction

This CLE webinar will guide patent counsel on the use of patent reexamination as a better post-grant option. The panel will discuss the pros and cons of reexamination as well as considerations to weigh before going down this path.

Description

Patent litigation involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) increased by double digits in 2025. Stakeholders expect this uptrend to escalate further in 2026 given the policy of the current USPTO administration to restrict access to the lower cost alternative review proceedings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As a result, ex parte patent reexamination—a 1980s era challenge mechanism Congress designed the PTAB to effectively replace—is now the only reliable access to the expert agency for patent challengers. 

While patent owners may initially welcome the one-sided patent reexamination process in place of the more robust inter partes system of PTAB trial proceedings, they will be surprised to discover significant drawbacks exist as compared to PTAB trial proceedings. 


For example:

• Broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is used to construe claims; not Phillips

• Examiners are free to construct better rejections than those presented in the reexamination request

• There is no mechanism to depose requestor experts who submit declarations with the request

• There is no option for a patent owner to submit a substantive argument before a reexamination order

• Far higher grant rate (historically, 90+%)

• New PTAB discretionary policies do not apply (i.e., no § 314(a) discretion)

• There is no real party in interest (RPI)/privity inquiry control; reexamination filings can even be anonymous

• There is no mechanism to stop serial reexamination challenges

• Duty of disclosure, inequitable conduct risk, prosecution bars, and the unfamiliar prosecution process before examiners may prevent litigation counsel from participating for patent owners

• No legal estoppel for requesters


For patent challengers, in addition to the obvious drawback of the ex parte process, there are additional downsides:

• Examiner involvement delays PTAB review until an appeal

• Patent owners can meet (interview) with the examiner and establish a rapport

• Patent owners can easily add numerous new/amended claims (unlike in the PTAB)

• Unpredictability of examination process, lack of consistency—especially on legal issues

• Loss of strongest prior art to less robust USPTO mechanism relative to review proceedings

• No statutory deadlines for a final decision.

Presented By

Kevin Laurence
Partner
Laurence & Phillips, LLP

Mr. Laurence has a winning record representing patent owners and petitioners in mission-critical IPR and PGR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He is also experienced with other post-grant proceedings having handled many high-profile reexaminations and reissues, which enables him to develop comprehensive post-grant strategies. He leverages his post-grant experience in prosecution matters to obtain patents for his clients that will survive challenges. Mr. Laurence has taught a course as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School on USPTO post-grant proceedings since 2015. He served as an instructor for Patent Resources Group (PRG) in courses on post-grant proceedings during 2009–2019. He is a co-author of a two-volume treatise titled Post-Grant Patent Practice, which was provided in conjunction with the PRG courses and was updated at least annually for over a decade. He has co-authored about 50 articles on post-grant patent topics. He served as Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Owners Association’s U.S. Post-Grant Patent Office Practice committee during 2012–2015. He served as a founding Board Director for the PTAB Bar Association during 2016–2017.  


Scott A. McKeown
Shareholder
Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

Mr. McKeown focuses his practice on post-grant patent counseling and litigation matters at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and related appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). He handles all aspects of post-issuance patent proceedings, with a particular focus on administrative trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as IPR and post-grant review PGR. He also provides advice on USPTO post-grant proceedings concurrent with complex International Trade Commission and district court litigations. Mr. McKeown is one of the most active PTAB trial attorneys in the U.S., having handled more than 500 PTAB matters since 2012, including those in which more than $500 million was at stake. He currently serves as lead post-grant counsel to some of the world’s best-known innovators and has handled some of the most noteworthy PTAB trials to date, including the only precedential decision on live testimony. Mr. McKeown is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School and a Founding Director of the PTAB Bar Association. He lectures and writes extensively on PTAB proceedings and maintains the award-winning blog, PatentsPostGrant.com, which examines developments in patent litigation, including issues related to USPTO post issuance proceedings. 

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Wednesday, February 25, 2026

  • schedule

    1:00 PM E.T.

I. Benefits and drawbacks of patent reexamination

II. Considerations when deciding whether to seek reexamination

III. Strategies for seeking review

The panel will review these and other key considerations/strategies, including:

  • Preparing an effective reexamination request
  • Reexamination timing and workload considerations
  • Patent owner prosecution strategies for successfully confirming challenged claims and securing new/amended claims
  • What are the unique uses of patent reexamination as a litigation strategy?
  • What are the considerations in seeking reexamination after a failed IPR?
  • What are the most common/effective strategies for seeking review of examiner decisions within the PTO, and when can requesters participate?