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
The explosion of artificial intelligence has raised some challenging questions in patent law, particularly with prior art, or the body of knowledge available prior to the filing of patent application. Two of the most...more
Many life science companies are using AI/ML to identify new disease targets and new therapeutics, predict the efficacy and toxicity of potential clinical therapeutic candidates, design clinical trials and dosing or treatment...more
In its first en banc patent decision since 2018, the Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding obviousness test for design patents under 35 U.S.C. 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, No. 21‑2348 slip op. (Fed....more
On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision (full court, instead of the typical three-judge panel) in LKQ Corp. et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturning the long-standing obviousness test...more
The USPTO published a request for comments (RFC) on April 30th, focusing on how advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) may impact the USPTO’s assessment of patentability governing (i) what may qualify as prior art and...more
For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex...more
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by the...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
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...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
Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. The Supreme Court emphasized “the need...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) where, on appeal, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rationale for sustaining the Board’s obviousness...more
Canada recently introduced patent rules related to excess claim fees and continued examination fees that have the potential to complicate conventional approaches to filing divisional patent applications....more
The Federal Circuit has held that a transcription error in a prior art document wouldn’t have been relied on by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and thus couldn’t be used to prove obviousness....more
Almost four years ago, in a relatively rare occurrence based on there being an insufficient factual record to permit proper appellate review, the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court decision rendering invalid the claims...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
An invention developed by a business or individual inventor may have great value to that business or individual, either through the commercialization of the invention or by licensing the invention to others in return for a...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has increasingly used its discretionary denial authority in recent years. Although the PTAB’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv grabbed many headlines in 2021, the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...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