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
In analyzing patent obviousness, how “simple” must the relevant technology be in order for “common sense” to supply a limitation missing in the prior art? Ever since the Supreme Court referenced “common sense” five times...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that challenged claims were invalid as anticipated based on principles of inherency where the disclosed prior art formulations and processes necessarily met a disputed...more
Case Name: Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., No. CV 20-5426 (SRC), 2022 WL 17352334 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2022) (Chesler, J.) Drug Products and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Duobrii® (halobetasol...more
Case Name: Chiesi USA, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., Civ. No. 19-18756, 2022 WL 3703207 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2022) (Quraishi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Cleviprex® (clevidipine injectable emulsions); U.S....more
Case Name: Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. No. 18-390 (MN), 2022 WL 3562555 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2022) (Noreika, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Velphoro® (sucroferric...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...more
Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1942, -1975 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2022) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reviewed an IPR decision and addressed the Patent Trial and Appeal...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
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held patent claims invalid for lack of written description where a negative limitation was...more
On January 3, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the Federal Circuit found written description support for a negative claim limitation, even though the negative claim limitation did not have...more
The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant). In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more
In a precedential opinion this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, in an appeal brought by HEC Pharm challenging the written description in Novartis’s 9,187,405...more
When does the absence of evidence turn into evidence of absence, and when does such absence amount to an adequate written description of the absence of a step of a method claim? This is a question that comes readily to mind...more
The Federal Circuit published a precedential decision on September 1, 2021 regarding the unenforceability of a pharmaceutical patent due to inequitable conduct. In Belcher Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Hospira, Inc., the Court...more
In academic settings, objective indicia of non-obviousness are sometimes presented as a common way of rebutting contentions that a claimed invention is obvious. These indicia, set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR), in part because an allegedly anticipatory prior art patent lacked an element of what the board determined was a limiting...more
We hope our readers had a restful Memorial Day Weekend. Even DC’s cicadas took the weekend off. Before the long weekend, the Federal Circuit left us with 3 precedential opinions, including one addressing what qualifies as...more
The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the...more
In Trustees of Columbia University v. Illumina, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) decision to invalidate five patents owned by Columbia,...more
Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the...more
In a recent precedential decision, the PTAB emphasized that objective indicia of nonobviousness must have a nexus to the claimed invention. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24,...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds - In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company , Appeal No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit held that a party...more
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC v. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in...more
BIOGEN MA INC. v. EMD SERONO, INC. Before Newman, Linn, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court of the District of New Jersey. Summary: A known method of administering a known product made by a new process is not...more