4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Corporate Perspectives on Intellectual Property
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
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
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
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)
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - U.S. State Data Privacy Update
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more
On October 26, the Boston Patent Law Association will host a panel featuring Judge William Young to discuss the legal landscape following the Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion in Actavis v. FTC...more
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more
In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more
A divided Supreme Court recently held in an opinion by Justice Breyer that “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between patent holders and potential competitors are not immune from scrutiny under antitrust laws....more
Antitrust challenges to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements in drug patent suits are allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc....more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust...more
The Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws may forbid patent settlements that delay the market entry of generic drugs in return for large payments from manufacturers of competing branded drugs....more
On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers....more