New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
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)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
Greater Speed and Efficiency: Steps IP Offices Around the World Are Taking to Streamline the Patent Process
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Patent Dual-application Strategy in China
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
New and Non-Obvious: The Nuts-and-Bolts Episode on Patent Law
5 Key Takeaways | Current Perspectives Around the Convergence of Life Sciences and IT
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more
Seeking to undo the current jurisprudence “mess” on the issue of patent eligibility, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony on January 23, 2024, on the Patent Eligibility...more
The Supreme Court recently declined to review Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., where a divided panel of the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that a PMC patent is unenforceable due to...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Amgen’s broad genus claims to cholesterol-lowering antibodies are invalid for lack of enablement....more
In a much-anticipated ruling issued on May 18, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s reading of the longstanding enablement requirement of U.S. patent law in the...more
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition on the issue of whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered an inventor on a patent. As we discussed in this blog, in 2019 Stephen Thaler sought patent...more
On April 18, 2023, we submitted a Supreme Court amicus brief expressing our encouragement for the justices to rule on the question of whether it is proper for an artificial intelligence (AI) to be an inventor on a patent...more
Dr. Stephen Thaler, Ph.D., a computer scientist and inventor, has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the question of whether the Patent Act restricts the definition of an "inventor" to human...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that claims to a computer system for identifying eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits are invalid as patent...more
For sale, or not for sale- That is the question in Larry G. Junker v. Medical Components Inc. et al., case that started in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and which has now been appealed to...more
In an order that is clearly less impactful and damaging than a number of opinions that the Supreme Court has disgorged in the last two weeks, the justices have denied certiorari in American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
In the Supreme Court's recent clarifying campaign through the Federal Circuit's U.S. patent law jurisprudence, one section of the statute, 35 U.S.C. §112(a) has been noticeably left unscathed. Indeed, avoidance of this...more
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (“Alice”) held that technologies that merely implemented an abstract idea with a generic computer were not eligible for patent...more
A patent applicant dissatisfied with a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has two options for review of that decision. Most commonly—by far—the applicant can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court...more
For many companies in many industries, patents are an important tool for driving innovation. At the same time, patents limit competition, so that companies must also be wary of their competitors’ patent portfolios. The result...more
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two trademark cases on June 28, 2019, adding them to its docket for next term. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., et al. concerns whether, under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15...more
Before enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, it was understood that an inventor’s secret commercialization of an invention through sale or use can operate like prior art against that inventor’s subsequent patent...more
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (Jan. 22, 2019)....more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc., which will determine whether unsuccessful applicants before the United States Patent and Trademark Office who elect to challenge adverse decisions...more
Addressing whether the on-sale bar of America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(a)(1) applies to confidential sales where specific details are not made public, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the post-AIA...more
If the term "happy hour" in this article's title caught your attention, you may be disappointed by what comes next. This article is actually about limitations on patent protection, which I would argue is just as...more
Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) is the maker of certain treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea (the “Palonosetron Products”). During the development process, Helsinn entered into two third party agreements for distribution...more