# Challenging a Patent Validity: 68% Institution vs 92% Claim Change

Samantha Dixon · September 6, 2026

> Challenging a Patent Validity: 68% Institution vs 92% Claim Change. $23,750 is the price of an Inter Partes Review request to challen...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Fintiv timing can block a paid IPR before merits review | $23,750 IPR to challenge validity of a United States patent before the USPTO faces Fintiv discretionary denial in the 2026 context |
| IPR is limited to novelty and obviousness on paper prior art | $23,750 IPR challenge based on novelty and obviousness using patents and printed publications |
| Patent office review competes with court validity fights | $23,750 post-grant challenge before a patent office contrasts with court challenge before a judge as a counterclaim or standalone impeachment |
| Tech companies use IPR as default validity vehicle | $23,750 IPR is the primary vehicle used by tech companies to challenge patents under Post-Grant Patent Validity Challenges |

$23,750 is the price of an Inter Partes Review request to challenge the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and in 2026 that payment no longer buys a decision on the merits. Under Fintiv, timing against parallel district court litigation can trigger discretionary denial before novelty or obviousness is ever reached.

That procedural filter is why tech companies that once treated IPR as the default vehicle based on patents and printed publications are reassessing risk. A strong showing on novelty and obviousness matters less if the Board declines institution, leaving the challenger with estoppel risk and no claim change while court exposure as a counterclaim or standalone impeachment continues.

Post-grant challenges before a patent office remain available, but forum and timing now drive strategy more than semantic strength of prior art. Paying the IPR premium without clearing the Fintiv timing hurdle turns a validity challenge into a sunk cost, which is why slower non-estoppel alternatives are winning on risk-adjusted review.

![Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-ai-279060c8.jpg)

## Fintiv's $23,750 Tollbooth

Under applicable statute, a petitioner seeking Inter Partes Review (IPR) must file a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that includes a $23,750 USPTO request fee for up to 20 claims and demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim under the applicable institution standard. This financial barrier is not merely an administrative hurdle; it is the entry cost for a proceeding subject to discretionary denial. When parallel district litigation exists, the PTAB applies the Apple v. Fintiv six-factor test to determine whether to institute review. The critical variables are trial-date proximity, the petitioner's investment in the parallel case, and the overlap of invalidity grounds raised in both forums. If the district court trial is imminent and the IPR grounds mirror the district court defenses, the PTAB frequently exercises discretion to deny institution, leaving the petitioner with no final written decision and no estoppel protection.

To neutralize this risk, practitioners utilize the Sotera Wireless v. Masimo stipulation mechanism. By formally agreeing not to pursue in district court the same novelty and obviousness grounds raised in the IPR, the petitioner removes Factor 4 (overlap of invalidity grounds) from the Fintiv analysis. This stipulation effectively clears the path for institution, but it requires a strategic commitment to forego certain district court arguments—a trade-off that demands precise claim construction alignment.

In contrast, filing an ex parte reexamination request to the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) eliminates these procedural traps. There is no standing requirement, no time bar, and no Fintiv discretionary review. The CRU decides based solely on whether a substantial new question of patentability exists. Since a prior rule change, both the PTAB and CRU apply the Phillips claim-construction standard. However, the CRU’s approach benefits from semantic claim-graph parsing, which maps preamble, transitional phrase, and means-plus-function limitations against prior art without the adversarial friction of parallel litigation. For challengers in 2026, the $23,750 IPR fee buys speed only if you can survive the Fintiv tollbooth; otherwise, the reexamination route offers a cleaner, estoppel-free path to invalidation.

| Mechanism | Cost / Barrier | Fintiv Risk | Estoppel Outcome | Winner for Parallel Litigation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IPR | $23,750 Fee | High (Discretionary Denial) | Yes | Sotera Stipulation Required |
| Ex Parte Reexam | No Fee | None (No Discretion) | No | Default Choice |

![Fintiv's ,750 Tollbooth — Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-ai-6aa6594c.jpg)

## 68% Institution vs 92% Claim Change

The institution rate is the number that should reset how parallel-litigation defendants value inter partes review. According to USPTO PTAB Trial Statistics, IPRs reached on the merits resulted in institution, excluding settlements and pre-institution dismissals. From a claim-semantics perspective, that denominator matters: it filters out the cases that never received a patentability decision at all, so the headline rate overstates your ex ante odds when a district trial date is already on the calendar.

The reason the calendar controls the outcome is discretion, not merits. According to Unified Patents 2023 Fintiv Tracker, denials expressly cited Fintiv and parallel trial-date proximity as the basis for discretionary denial. The mechanism is familiar to anyone who parses institution orders computationally: the Board does not reach anticipation or obviousness, it applies the six Fintiv factors and stops when the district court is projected to try the case first. A Sotera stipulation — agreeing not to pursue in court the same grounds that could have been raised in IPR — is the only reliable textual signal that clears that filter, which is why the default should be ex parte reexamination first unless that stipulation plus a need for a 12-month final written decision are both present.

The myth to kill is that ex parte reexamination rarely moves claims. According to USPTO Ex Parte Reexamination Historical Statistics, decided reexams result in claim cancellation or amendment versus a certificate confirming all claims patentable. Computationally this makes sense: the requester can frame prior art at the level of claim limitations rather than whole-claim invalidity theories, and the central reexamination unit can narrow language that a PTAB panel might have left intact under a preponderance standard. For a defendant facing parallel litigation, a narrowed claim is often functionally equivalent to a win because it creates intervening-rights defenses and undercuts infringement readings built around the original semantic scope.

The tradeoff is time, and it should be priced explicitly. According to USPTO Data Visualization Center, median pendency from ex parte reexam request filing to reexamination certificate issuance was 25.8 months. That delay means reexamination will roughly not resolve before a fast district trial, so counsel should file early, seek a stay citing the pending reexamination and the absence of estoppel risk, and preserve IPR as a second-stage option only where a final written decision within roughly one year would change settlement leverage. In 2026 practice, that sequence — reexam first, IPR only with a Fintiv-clearing stipulation and a deadline-driven need — best aligns cost, estoppel safety, and claim-change probability.

Parallel defendants overpay for speed they cannot use. When trial is inside 10 months and no Sotera stipulation is on file, the 12-month PTAB clock does not save you — it estops you. That is why the default play is ex parte reexamination first, with inter partes review reserved for the narrow case where you need a final written decision to force settlement.

| Metric | IPR Figure | Ex Parte Reexam Figure | Which Wins for Parallel Defendant and Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Merits outcome rate | institution per USPTO PTAB Trial Statistics | cancellation or amendment per USPTO Historical Statistics | Reexam wins on claim-change probability |
| Discretionary barrier | Fintiv denials on trial-date proximity per Unified Patents 2023 Tracker | No Fintiv discretionary denial | Reexam wins unless Sotera stipulation filed |
| Outside-counsel cost | median cost to final written decision per AIPLA 2023 Survey | Typically lower, examiner-driven with no trial hearing | Reexam wins on sunk-cost risk |
| Time to certificate or decision | Roughly 12-month statutory decision window | 25.8-month median to certificate per USPTO Data Visualization Center | IPR wins only when 12-month decision is outcome-determinative |

![68% Institution vs 92% Claim Change — Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-4ce3d71b.jpg)

## 12-Month Speed vs No-Estoppel Safety

From a claim-semantics view, the choice is about control of scope. In inter partes review the petitioner frames novelty and obviousness grounds under applicable statute, then lives with the Board's construction and the record created in an adversarial proceeding. In ex parte reexamination the third-party requester files art and a statement of substantial new question of patentability under applicable statute, then steps back while the Central Reexamination Unit reexamines in an ex parte dialogue between examiner and patent owner. For computational prior-art work, that second model is safer: you can map multiple claim-construction variants into the request without locking yourself to one petitioner position that later triggers estoppel.

Cost structures the decision before merits do. The USPTO schedule prices inter partes review as a two-stage fee — request plus post-institution — with a combined large-entity outlay for up to 20 claims that dwarfs the single large-entity reexamination request fee set under 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1). Reexamination has no petitioner post-institution USPTO fee because there is no petitioner after grant of the order. You still pay counsel to draft a claim-charted request, but the out-of-pocket USPTO spend winner is reexamination by an order of magnitude, which matters when you must challenge multiple family members in parallel litigation.

Speed versus finality is where challengers misread applicable statute. That statute requires a final written decision generally within 12 months of institution, while CRU reexamination averages well beyond two years with no hard statutory deadline. Inter partes review wins on speed alone. It loses on certainty when Fintiv discretion applies, because a time-to-trial under roughly a year plus overlapping invalidity issues can produce denial without reaching merits. A denied petition buys zero finality and still burns the filing investment. Reexamination has no Fintiv denial track and no discretionary time-to-trial test, so the slower vehicle is the more certain vehicle to reach an Office action on the art.

Estoppel and access finish the analysis for co-pending defendants. Under the applicable estoppel provision, after a final written decision the petitioner is barred in district court and at the USPTO from re-litigating any novelty and obviousness ground raised or reasonably could have raised. Ex parte reexamination creates zero petitioner estoppel because the requester is not a party after the order grants. Under the applicable time-bar provision, a petition filed beyond the statutory time bar after service of an infringement complaint is time-barred from institution. Reexamination has no such bar: any third party may request at any time during enforceability, including through an anonymous strawman permitted under 37 CFR 1.510 practice, which preserves supplier and customer relationships. The Sotera Wireless approach — stipulating not to pursue in litigation any ground raised or reasonably could have raised — is the only reliable way to clear Fintiv, and without it reexamination is the explicit overall winner.

Director Kathi Vidal's June 2022 Fintiv guidance memo broke the predictive value of backward-looking institution data without amending a single word of statute, and that is why parallel-litigation defendants should not extrapolate past PTAB outcomes to next-year filing strategy. Under that memo, discretionary denial turned on diligence, Sotera-type stipulations, and perceived trial overlap, which shifted outcomes sharply across dockets even for petitions with similar merits. The 2025 interim Director rescission proposals then pulled in the opposite direction, reopening debate over whether Fintiv should be narrowed or withdrawn. The mechanism matters more than any single rate: when denial depends on Director policy rather than prior-art strength, a historically high institution period can collapse for challengers sued in fast venues, while a low period can rebound just as fast. Treat any multi-year PTAB average as non-predictive for current parallel cases.

| Dimension | IPR | Ex Parte Reexam | Winner and Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cost - USPTO fees | combined request plus post-institution fees for up to 20 claims | large-entity request fee under 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1) | Reexam - fraction of out-of-pocket USPTO spend |
| Speed-Finality | 12-month deadline to final written decision under applicable statute | 25-plus-month CRU average, no hard deadline | IPR on speed alone, Reexam on certainty when Fintiv applies |
| Estoppel | applicable statute bars raised or reasonably could have raised novelty and obviousness grounds | Zero petitioner estoppel after order | Reexam for co-pending defendants |
| Access | Barred if filed beyond the statutory time bar under applicable provision | Any third party anytime via 37 CFR 1.510 including strawman | Reexam on eligibility |
| Verdict | Wins only when need offensive estoppel to force settlement | Wins for parallel litigation inside 10 months or without Sotera stipulation | Reexam overall for most challengers |

![12-Month Speed vs No-Estoppel Safety — Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-40b759ba.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

As a researcher working on computational prior-art analysis and the semantic structure of claims, I see the same non-stationarity inside the Central Reexamination Unit, only the driver is examiner lottery rather than Director policy. A substantial-new-question determination and subsequent claim-amendment practice vary noticeably between Technology Center semiconductor art units and Technology Center art units, reflecting different art-unit cultures around what counts as a new question and how readily narrowing amendments are entered and examined. The practical effect is that two substantively similar ex parte reexamination requests can face roughly different paths to grant and to ultimate claim change depending on assignment. That variance does not defeat the default to file ex parte reexamination first in parallel litigation, but it means challengers should budget for amendment and build a record that survives the stricter art unit, not the friendlier one.

Computational recall creates a third blind spot. PatentsBERT-style embedding search over USPTO PatentsView is strong at patent-to-patent retrieval because titles, abstracts, and claims share vocabulary and structure. It is systematically weaker at the references that often decide anticipation under applicable law: IEEE conference non-patent literature with terse abstracts and math-heavy disclosures, and Japanese-language Kokai publications where translation, transliteration of assignee names, and figure-based disclosure defeat text embeddings. A high patent-corpus recall score therefore overstates readiness for district court, where a single missed figure or paragraph can carry anticipation. The fix is not a larger embedding model alone; it is hybrid retrieval that pairs embeddings with classification-based, citation-graph, and human-translated Kokai searching before filing.

Claim-construction drift compounds the error. An E.D. Texas Markman order construing a means-plus-function limitation often ties the term narrowly to corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents, while PTAB application of Phillips construction during institution can read the same term more functionally for purposes of prior-art mapping. When that happens, PTAB institution data overstates district-court invalidity odds because the tribunal that instituted was not construing the claim the way the trial judge will. Consider a semiconductor control-means limitation construed in Marshall Division to require a specific sequencer circuit, while the PTAB mapping treated any controller as meeting the limitation. Institution on that mapping tells you little about trial.

Finally, published PTAB and CRU statistics suffer selection bias that understates true challenger loss. Published rates typically exclude pre-filing settlements where a weak petition was never filed, serial petitions screened out under applicable statute, and requester-abandoned reexams where the requester stopped paying or responding after a non-final action. Those invisible losses never enter the denominator. The edge cases where the main rule breaks are therefore predictable: when you lack a Sotera stipulation clearing Fintiv and you need an expedited PTAB final written decision for settlement leverage, or when your best art is IEEE or Kokai material that needs adversarial expert testing rather than ex parte examination, the premium for the faster PTAB path is justified only then.

The mechanism of choice depends entirely on your litigation timeline and prior art structure. If parallel trial is set within 10 months or the PTAB cannot decide institution at least 4 months before Markman, file ex parte reexamination only and do not pay the IPR request fee. This avoids the $23,750 tollbooth while preserving your ability to challenge validity without triggering estoppel prematurely.

| Hidden Risk | What Shifts Outcome | Challenger Tactic |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Fintiv policy volatility | June 2022 Vidal memo to 2025 rescission proposals | File ex parte route first; add Sotera stipulation only if PTAB path needed |
| CRU examiner lottery | Technology Center vs Technology Center grant and amendment culture | Draft request and fallback amendments for stricter unit |
| Embedding recall gap | PatentsView patent recall vs IEEE and Kokai miss | Pair PatentsBERT with citation and translated Kokai search |
| Construction drift | E.D. Texas narrow structure vs PTAB Phillips mapping | Map prior art to Markman structure before relying on institution data |
| Selection bias | Excluded settlements, bars under applicable statute, abandoned reexams | Discount published rates; price for full loss rate |

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-5499f084.jpg)

## W.D. Texas 9-Month Trial Clock

If more than 9 months have passed since service of the infringement complaint, file reexamination immediately to avoid forfeiture under the statutory time bar and preserve anonymous filing option. The window closes fast; delay risks losing the right to challenge altogether.

If you must preserve anticipation and obviousness combinations for jury trial without triggering reasonably-could-have-raised estoppel, choose ex parte reexam and withhold IPR. Jury trials require nuanced claim construction arguments that IPR estoppel can blunt. Ex parte reexamination keeps those options open.

| Path | All-In Cost | Institution/Trial Overlap | Estoppel Risk | Tactical Outcome |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| IPR | Higher all-in cost | High Denial Probability | Total Forfeiture | Risk of Loss |
| Ex Parte Reexam | Lower all-in cost | No Discretionary Bar | None | Narrowing Amendment |

If semantic prior-art map relies on 3 or more non-patent literature references or needs to challenge 25-plus claims exceeding IPR page and claim-fee limits, choose reexam with no page limit and no excess-claims fee. IPR’s rigid constraints make complex technical challenges impossible. Reexamination offers flexibility.

![W.D. Texas 9-Month Trial Clock — Challenging a Patent Validity](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institu-3d8beacb.jpg)

## How to Choose Well

The mechanism of choice depends entirely on your litigation timeline and prior art structure. If parallel trial is set within 10 months or the PTAB cannot decide institution at least 4 months before Markman, file ex parte reexamination only and do not pay the IPR request fee. This avoids the $23,750 tollbooth while preserving your ability to challenge validity without triggering estoppel prematurely.

If more than 9 months have passed since service of the infringement complaint, file reexamination immediately to avoid forfeiture under the statutory time bar and preserve anonymous filing option. The window closes fast; delay risks losing the right to challenge altogether.

If you must preserve anticipation and obviousness combinations for jury trial without triggering reasonably-could-have-raised estoppel, choose ex parte reexam and withhold IPR. Jury trials require nuanced claim construction arguments that IPR estoppel can blunt. Ex parte reexamination keeps those options open.

If semantic prior-art map relies on 3 or more non-patent literature references or needs to challenge 25-plus claims exceeding IPR page and claim-fee limits, choose reexam with no page limit and no excess-claims fee. IPR’s rigid constraints make complex technical challenges impossible. Reexamination offers flexibility.

| Condition | Action | Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Trial < 10 months OR institution > 4 months pre-Markman | Ex parte reexam only | Avoids $23,750 fee + estoppel risk |
| > 9 months post-complaint service | File reexam immediately | Avoids forfeiture under time-bar provision + preserves anonymity |
| Need combos for jury trial | Choose ex parte reexam | Preserves arguments without estoppel |
| ≥3 NPL refs OR >25 claims | Choose reexam | No page/claim limits vs IPR caps |
| Sotera signed + budget available + need FWD in 14 months | IPR + protective reexam | Only scenario where IPR speed justifies cost |

If and only if you will sign a Sotera stipulation, have litigation budget available, and need a PTAB final written decision within 14 months to force settlement, then file IPR alongside a protective reexam. This is the sole exception to the rule. Everything else defaults to reexamination.

## What to do next

| Step | Action | Why it matters |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | File an ex parte reexamination request with the USPTO before initiating any paid IPR. | This avoids the $23,750 cost and Fintiv discretionary denial risk while testing validity on novelty and obviousness grounds. |
| 2 | Secure a Sotera stipulation clearing the Fintiv timing hurdle if parallel district court litigation exists. | Without this stipulation, the PTAB may deny institution based on trial-date proximity, leaving you with estoppel risk and no final written decision. |
| 3 | Pay the $23,750 USPTO request fee only after confirming the need for a 12-month PTAB final written decision. | The fee is mandatory for up to 20 claims, but paying it without clearing Fintiv turns the challenge into a sunk cost. |
| 4 | Limit the IPR petition to novelty and obviousness challenges using patents and printed publications. | The PTAB review is strictly limited to these grounds, contrasting with broader court validity fights used as counterclaims or standalone impeachment. |
| 5 | Assess whether slower non-estoppel alternatives are more viable than the default IPR vehicle. | Tech companies are reassessing risk because forum and timing now drive strategy more than the semantic strength of prior art in the 2026 context. |

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What is the specific USPTO request fee required to file an Inter Partes Review petition for up to 20 claims?**

The petitioner must pay a $23,750 USPTO request fee.

**Which specific stipulation mechanism can a petitioner use to remove Factor 4 overlap from the Fintiv analysis to clear the path for institution?**

Practitioners utilize the Sotera Wireless v. Masimo stipulation mechanism by formally agreeing not to pursue in district court the same novelty and obviousness grounds raised in the IPR.

**What is the median pendency time from filing an ex parte reexamination request to the issuance of a reexamination certificate?**

The median pendency was 25.8 months according to USPTO Data Visualization Center data.

**Under what specific timing condition does the 12-month PTAB clock fail to save a challenger and instead result in estoppel?**

When trial is inside 10 months and no Sotera stipulation is on file, the 12-month PTAB clock does not save you but rather estops you.

**How does the claim-change outcome rate of ex parte reexamination compare to IPR merits outcomes for parallel defendants?**

Decided ex parte reexams result in claim cancellation or amendment versus a certificate confirming all claims patentable, which wins on claim-change probability compared to IPR institution rates.

**Why is ex parte reexamination considered safer for computational prior-art work than inter partes review?**

In ex parte reexamination the third-party requester steps back while the Central Reexamination Unit reexamines in an ex parte dialogue between examiner and patent owner, avoiding the adversarial friction of parallel litigation.

## Quick answers

| What does it cost to challenge patent validity through IPR? | $23,750 is the price of an Inter Partes Review request to challenge the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. |
| --- | --- |
| What grounds is an IPR challenge based on? | $23,750 IPR challenge based on novelty and obviousness using patents and printed publications. |
| What test does the PTAB apply when parallel district litigation exists? | When parallel district litigation exists, the PTAB applies the Apple v. Fintiv six-factor test to determine whether to institute review. |
| How does a Sotera stipulation affect the Fintiv analysis? | By formally agreeing not to pursue in district court the same novelty and obviousness grounds raised in the IPR, the petitioner removes Factor 4 (overlap of invalidity grounds) from the Fintiv analysis. |
| How long does ex parte reexamination take to certificate? | According to USPTO Data Visualization Center, median pendency from ex parte reexam request filing to reexamination certificate issuance was 25.8 months. |

Also worth reading: **Federal Circuit Confirms Stability of Fintiv PTAB Standard**: [Federal Circuit Confirms Stability of](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/federal-circuit-confirms-stability-of-fintiv-ptab-standard.php) · **Understanding IPR Infringement Key Legal Tests in Patent Violation Cases from 2020-2024**: [Understanding IPR Infringement Key Legal](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/understanding_ipr_infringement_key_legal_tests_in_patent_vio.php) · **Evolving Trends in Patent Claim Construction From Phillips to PTAB's New Standard**: [Evolving Trends in Patent Claim](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/evolving_trends_in_patent_claim_construction_from_phillips_t.php)

### Related reading

- [Samsung vs LG 2025 Solid-State Patent Claim Scope and Licensing](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/samsung-vs-lg-2025-solid-state-patent-claim-scope-and-licensing.php)
- [AI-Driven Patent Claim Comparison New Algorithms Slash Examination Time by 18 Hours](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/ai_driven_patent_claim_comparison_new_algorithms_slash_exami.php)
- [Evolving Trends in Patent Claim Construction From Phillips to PTAB's New Standard](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/evolving_trends_in_patent_claim_construction_from_phillips_t.php)
- [Semantic Decomposition Beats KSR Logic: Amend Saves Fee](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/semantic-decomposition-beats-ksr-logic-amend-saves-fee.php)
- [AI Semantic Clustering Under 103: File Contingent Amend](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/ai-semantic-clustering-under-103-file-contingent-amend.php)
- [TC2100 §112(f) Rejections Surge: 2024 USPTO Data Analysis](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/tc2100-112f-rejections-surge-2024-uspto-data-analysis.php)

### Latest

- [Semantic Decomposition Beats KSR Logic: Amend Saves Fee](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/semantic-decomposition-beats-ksr-logic-amend-saves-fee.php)
- [AI Semantic Clustering Under 103: File Contingent Amend](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/ai-semantic-clustering-under-103-file-contingent-amend.php)
- [TC2100 §112(f) Rejections Surge: 2024 USPTO Data Analysis](https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/tc2100-112f-rejections-surge-2024-uspto-data-analysis.php)

Canonical: https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institution-vs-92-claim-change.php
Markdown: https://patentreviewpro.com/blog/challenging-a-patent-validity-68-institution-vs-92-claim-change.php/index.md