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 any merger or acquisition, the due diligence stage is one of the most critical steps. It allows the acquiring company to identify dealbreakers, assess risks, make informed decisions, negotiate effectively, ensure...more
The Supreme Court of Canada recently clarified the role of non-infringing options as well as springboard profits when calculating profits in patent infringement cases....more
On November 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its decision in Nova Chemicals Corp v Dow Chemical Co (2022 SCC 43). This decision upheld the largest monetary award to date in a Canadian patent infringement...more
On September 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to Apotex (Docket No. 39172) with respect to a decision affirming the quantum of profits payable to the Plaintiffs ADIR and Servier for infringement of ADIR’S...more
Innovations that are eligible for patent protection are often vital to a company’s revenue stream and profitability, but in some cases, opting for trade secret protection is a better strategic choice. Although some types...more
The American Bar Association (“ABA”) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., No. 18-1233....more
In June 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 18-1233. As set forth in our previous blog post, Romag Fasteners Inc. (“Romag”) seeks to have the Court...more
On Friday, June 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. to decide whether a showing of willfulness is necessary to obtain a defendant’s profits under the Lanham Act....more
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), trademark holder who proves infringement may receive as damages an award of profits “subject to the principles of equity.” This phrase has divided the circuit courts going back several decades, with...more
Hogan Lovells’ U.S. + German Patent Update reports on recent patent news and cases from Germany and the United States. United States - - U.S. Congress Introduces Bill Addressing Patent Subject Matter Eligibility -...more
A petition for writ of certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court asks the Court to decide whether a plaintiff must prove willful infringement to obtain an award of a trademark infringer’s profits for a violation of 15...more
Many companies assume that they need to choose between patent protections or trade secret protections for their intellectual property, thereby foregoing an important tool in their arsenal to protect key company assets....more
Servier and its related company ADIR were successful in another chapter of patent litigation relating to perindopril (Servier’s COVERSYL): the Federal Court again dismissed Apotex’s non-infringing alternative defence, finding...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more
The Federal Court has issued their Public Judgment and Reasons concerning the financial compensation to be paid as a result of earlier patent infringement and validity proceedings between Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) and NOVA...more
On February 2, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant decision on accounting for profits, a remedy for patent infringement in Canada: Apotex Inc v ADIR, 2017 FCA 23. The appeal concerned two defences raised...more
The UK Court of Appeal confirmed on 18 January that an employee was not entitled to any compensation from his employer for the income generated by his patented inventions, as the returns did not amount to an “outstanding...more
December has been a hot month for IP law, with important developments in several cases that may significantly impact your intellectual property prosecution and enforcement strategies. Here is a brief summary of each of these...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous 8-0 opinion reversed and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit an award to Apple, Inc. of $399 million of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s total profits on...more
The Supreme Court of the United States handed Samsung a victory yesterday by reversing a $400 million judgment previously won by Apple for infringement of several of Apple's design patents. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court held in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. that Section 289 of the Patent Act does not demand that the entire, infringing end-user product be the basis for determining damages for design patent...more
Since their initial release, smartphones have been a hot commodity with intense competition. One particularly contentious issue has been their appearance. During early development, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) obtained several...more
On July 28, 2015, Celgene filed a motion for sanctions in IPR Nos. 2015-01092 and 2015-01103, proceedings challenging the validity of Celgene patents covering Thalomid®, Revlimid® and Pomalyst®. Celgene specifically...more