Why Invalidation Contention Analysis Matters
When a patent is asserted in litigation or challenged through IPR/PGR proceedings, defendants often respond with aggressive invalidity contentions. These contentions often include multiple prior art references and assert several legal grounds, such as anticipation (§102), obviousness (§103), or claim defects under §112.
This strategy is intentional. It aims to pressure patent owners, create doubt about claim validity, and push toward early settlement or claim cancellation
For patent owners, the key risk is not the number of references cited but whether they actually cover every claim requirement.
Invalidity contentions often:
- Interpret patent claims too broadly, beyond what was granted
- Use prior art that does not clearly match claim features
- Ignore changes made during patent examination, including claim amendments and limitations added to obtain allowance
- Misapply patent law requirements for anticipation (§102), obviousness (§103), or clarity/support (§112)
A focused, claim-by-claim review of the cited prior art is essential to defending your patent.
Our Approach at IPEnigma
At IPEnigma, we help patent owners and legal teams test the strength of invalidity contentions, focusing on what truly matters under the law and technology.
Our analysis includes:
- Claim scope review by studying the patent specification, prosecution history, claim amendments, examiner rejections, and applicant arguments
- Ground-by-ground evaluation of prior art to assess whether it truly supports anticipation (§102) or obviousness (§103)
- Identification of technical and legal gaps, including missing claim elements, improper combinations, and incorrect assumptions about a person skilled in the art (PHOSITA)
IPEnigma delivers focused, claim-driven invalidity analysis so your patent stands on what truly matters.