Continuing applications—such as Divisionals or Continuations—are essential tools for maximizing patent protection and strategic flexibility. They allow applicants to:

1. Pursue broader claims than those allowed in the parent;
2. Secure narrower claims that may be commercially or legally valuable;
3. Reintroduce unexamined claims based on the original disclosure;
4. Refocus claims to align with evolving products, markets, or legal priorities; and
5. Keep an application pending, preserving the ability to adapt claims in response to emerging infringing products or market dynamics.

Importantly, having an open application enhances enforcement leverage, as it enables tailoring claims toward specific infringing embodiments. It also increases the perceived and real value of the IP, signaling ongoing investment in innovation and future protection potential.

In today’s accelerated environment, proactive continuation strategy is no longer optional — it’s essential.

Parallel Continuations: A Strategic Response to IPR Pressure

Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a USPTO proceeding that allows third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents—typically based on prior art. IPRs are faster and significantly less expensive than litigation, making them attractive tools for accused infringers. However, that same low cost can present a threat to patentees when a portfolio relies on a single issued patent.

This is where the strategy of prosecuting many continuing applications in parallel becomes a powerful value generator.

Why?

Because while a single IPR may cost a challenger a fraction of litigation, trying to file IPRs against multiple related patents—each with different claim scopes and continuations—can quickly become prohibitively expensive.

Key Benefits of the Strategy:

Cost-Shielding Effect – One IPR might be manageable for a challenger. But when a portfolio includes numerous active continuations, each with different claims, the cost to challenge every asset multiplies rapidly—turning the infringer’s cost advantage into a disadvantage.

Dilution of IPR Effectiveness – Even if claims in one patent are invalidated, others in the continuation family may still stand, or be amended to survive. The patentee retains enforcement power and deal-making leverage.

IP Value Amplification – Investors, acquirers, and licensees assign higher value to portfolios that are harder to attack, more flexible, and strategically layered.

Deterrence – A dense web of pending applications makes adversaries think twice before initiating IPRs, knowing they may only knock out one head of the hydra while others remain or reemerge.

Bottom Line:

In today’s IPR-driven enforcement environment, prosecuting multiple continuing applications in parallel is not just a safeguard—it’s a value-generating strategy. It transforms a patent family into a resilient, cost-prohibitive fortress that is difficult to invalidate and more powerful in negotiation.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this webpage does not constitute legal advice and is intended for general informational purposes only. Information on this webpage may not reflect the most up-to-date legal developments or other information. The webpage may contain links to other third-party websites for convenience purposes only. Ehrlich Group assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this page.