Challenging Pending Patent Applications: When, Where and What Type

Navigating Third-Party Submissions, Protests and Derivation Proceedings for Pre-Grant Applications

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

Conducted on Thursday, May 26, 2016

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will examine the determination of challenging patent applications pre-grant and the factors that should be considered when making the decision to challenge. The panel will discuss preissuance submissions of relevant prior art, protests and derivation proceedings as well as the risks and ramifications of challenging pending patent applications.


When attacking the patentability of a pending patent application, challengers should have a strategy for the timing and potential ramifications of the action.

In a pending application, any third party “may submit for consideration” “any patent, published patent application, or other printed publication.” While both preissuance submissions and protests permit a challenge to disclosure, novelty and nonobviousness, they are governed by different rules, which may impact the decision about which path, if any, to take. For example, protests, unlike preissuance submissions, can be based on “any facts or information adverse to patentability” and are not restricted to challenges based on patents, published applications, or printed publications.

Counsel must consider when and where to file, and what tools to use before challenging a pending patent application as well as the potential downstream risks and ramifications.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the factors patent counsel and their clients should weigh when determining when, where and what type of submission to use. The panel will discuss preissuance submissions of relevant prior art, protests and derivation proceedings and will offer guidance on challenging pre-grant patent applications.



  1. Timing
  2. Types of challenges
    1. Preissuance submissions of relevant prior art, 35 U.S.C. §122(e) as amended by AIA Sec. 8
    2. Challenge based on derived invention
    3. Protests under 37 C.F.R. §1.294
  3. Considerations when determining when, where and type of patent validity


Our panel will review these and other important issues:

  • What is the basis of the challenge to the pending application? What role does this have in determining the path of the pre-grant challenge?
  • What are the potential risks involved in challenging a pending patent application?
  • What factors should counsel consider when determining when and where to challenge a pending application?


Adriana L. Burgy
Adriana L. Burgy

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Ms. Burgy focuses on opinion work, client counseling, patent prosecution and management, and litigation in the...  |  Read More

Irving, Thomas
Thomas L. Irving

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Mr. Irving has 35 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution,...  |  Read More

McDonell, Leslie
Leslie A. McDonell

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Ms. McDonell provides strategic counseling on the procurement and protection of IP in the pharmaceutical,...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video