Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Ten South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7407, United States

  • 312.463.5000
  • 312.463.5001

A Slip of the Pen May Cost You Your IPR

The Patent Office is getting inter partes review (IPR) petitions by the boat load. Some patent challengers are adding to the volume by filing numerous IPRs against a single patent. They use each IPR for a distinct set of claims…more
| Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Who You Gonna Call? The Board!

The PTAB issued an order providing guidance for responding to potential witness coaching during a deposition recess. Cases IPR2014-00411 and IPR2014-00434 – FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. - In an inter…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Considers Whether ITC Can Properly Exclude Imported Products That Only Infringe After Importation

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Fed. Cir., No. 2012-1170, a case involving the ability of the International Trade…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit IPR Scoreboard PTAB: 2 Patent Owner: 0

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its first decision in an appeal of a final decision from a post-issuance review proceeding under the America Invents Act. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and…more
| Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology, Transportation

Intellectual Property Alert: The Supreme Court Points Courts to Juries on Issue of Trademark Tacking

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that trademark tacking is an inquiry that operates from the perspective of an…more
| Civil Procedure, Finance & Banking, Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Overturns De Novo Review of Patent Claim Construction

On Tuesday, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent under which patent claim construction was reviewed wholly de novo. Specifically, the Court held…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Don’t Forget Indefiniteness as a Ground for Invalidation in a CBM Patent Review

The PTAB recently instituted a covered business method patent review (CBM) based on grounds that include asserted indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: Year-End Brings New Developments in Patent Eligibility

Section 101 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. 101) continues to be of concern for patent practitioners, patent applicants and patent owners. The language of this statute defines what constitutes patent eligible subject matter, as…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

On December 2, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., the first trademark case to reach the Court in nearly ten years. William F. Jay, of Washington,…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Considers Whether Judge or Jury Should Tackle Trademark “Tacking”

On December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank et al., on writ of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is the…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property

Three Rounds to Knock Out Ultramercial’s Patent on “Advertising as Currency”

After sparring three separate rounds at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Defendant WildTangent’s pre-answer…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTAB Refuses to Give Petitioner a Second Chance to Articulate Reasons for Invalidity

November 10, 2014 – In a decision denying institution of inter partes review, the PTAB executes it discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to refuse to give a petitioner a second chance to provide invalidity arguments…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

PTAB Follows District Court’s Claim Construction

November 10, 2014 – In construing a term in a claim of an expired patent, the PTAB followed the district court in adopting the petitioner’s proposed construction…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

PTAB Cracking Down on Serial IPR Petitions

November 4, 2014 — The estoppels of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) don’t kick in to bar a petitioner from filing a second inter partes review petition against the same patent until a final written decision is rendered in the first. Hence,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

“Do the Due”: Performing proper diligence when assessing IP assets for acquisition - Knowing all of the benefits and issues before acquisition is the only way to ensure a well-reasoned patent acquisition

The concept of due diligence often arises when intellectual property (IP) assets become available for potential acquisition. Any number of reasons may lead to this availability. An asset may be for sale due to an entity going…more
| Commercial Law & Contracts, Mergers & Acquisitions, Intellectual Property
Showing 1-15 of 95 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
Areas of Practice
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • D.C.
  • Massachusetts
  • Oregon
Number of Attorneys

50-100 Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.