Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
#WorkforceWednesday: Invention Ownership - Why the Tense Matters in Employee IP Provisions - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Patent Dual-application Strategy in China
How to Write a Technical Disclosure for Patent Drafting
The Utility Model System in China
Williams Mullen Manufacturing Edge: IP Considerations for Manufacturers
Risk Prevention Strategies: Ownership of Employee-Developed Inventions and Intellectual Property
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications Part 3: Pitfalls
Healthcare Tech: How Are Licensing Agreements Bridging the Industry Divide?
What Is a Patent and How Do I Get One
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications Part 1: Benefits
Monthly Minute | Commercialization of an Invention
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 2
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Patent Searching
PODCAST: Trending Now An IP Podcast - Patent Office Secrecy Orders
IP Monthly Minute | February 2020
JONES DAY TALKS®: When AI Invents: Two Applications Test U.S. Patent Law
6 Key Takeaways | Considerations Before Relying on AIA Prior User Rights
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that a technical expert does not need to have been a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention. Instead, they may rely on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that a private sale of a product embodying the claimed invention did not qualify as a “public disclosure” under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may...more
The Situation: Even after the introduction of the European Unitary Patent Court, Germany remains a key battleground in major patent litigations. In the bifurcated German litigation system, nullity cases are heard before the...more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
Antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is a promising class of cancer treatments with accelerating U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and rapidly growing market size as discussed in previous articles in this series. This...more
Amidst economic constraints, industry convergence, and the need for improved patent quality, patent workflows demand a paradigm shift to meet the evolving landscape. The current macro environment combined with the increasing...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...more
Recent guidance published in the Federal Register by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) explains some of what is required by patent examiners in making an obviousness case under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since it is...more
A global consensus seems to be forming that an artificial intelligence (AI) system does not deserve—at least for now—to be named as an inventor on a patent application. The question is under consideration and being settled in...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trustees v. United States, Appeal No. 2022-2248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the scope of a provision of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (35...more
Axonics petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by Medtronic. The challenged claims relate to a neurostimulation lead and a method for implanting and anchoring the lead. The patents’ “Field of the Invention” section states...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining...more
The technical problem actually solved by an invention should be determined based on distinguishing technical feature of the claims as compared with the most-related prior art and the technical effect can be known by a person...more
Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...more
A patent does not give the owner the right to do anything. Rather, it gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the claimed invention, which most...more
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
On August 22, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed an IPR Final Written Decision holding claims to deuterated derivatives of ruxolitinib unpatentable as obvious and rejected the patentee’s argument that a skilled artisan would...more
This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more
Addressing the nexus between a secondary consideration and the claimed invention in assessing obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of nonobviousness...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, holding that the Board did not err in finding certain challenged claims nonobvious and not unpatentable based on a showing of several...more
I’m a bit behind and therefore am not part of the slew of commentary that flowed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 (2023), addressing Amgen’s claims to “antibodies that (1) bind...more