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
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (referred to as the Amgen decision) likely makes it more difficult for life sciences companies to obtain broad patents claiming an entire genus of antibodies...more
On November 4, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi. Certiorari was limited to the question of whether the enablement...more
According to the Guidelines for Patent Examination, a process claim shall usually be defined in terms of technical features such as technological process, operational conditions, steps, and procedures. However, the Guidelines...more
The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., ___ F.3d __, 2020 WL 5048435 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020) construing the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” According to the decision: Antibody:...more
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. 10X GENOMICS INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Where elements of preamble are limiting,...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
The Federal Circuit has issued another opinion arising from the patent conflict between The Chamberlain Group and Techtronic Industries—and, once again, a patent owned by Chamberlain suffered a major blow. In Techtronic...more
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. ITC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: Consistent description in the specification of a particular embodiment as the...more
PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED INNOVATION AND RESEARCH V. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. Before Reyna, Newman, and Clevenger. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The patentee’s lexicography of...more
PHARMA TECH SOLUTIONS, INC. v. LIFESCAN, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Summary: Claims for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
It is important for petitioners and patent owners alike to understand the implications of Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions, which relied on prosecution history and the title to limit design patent claim scope....more
The Canadian Patent Act was amended last year to include a new provision which allows prosecution histories into evidence in patent proceedings to rebut representations made by the patentee regarding claims construction. ...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Reading a process limitation into a product claim is improper where the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Clevenger and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Prosecution history estoppel does not bar enforcement of a...more
Priority Claims Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference - In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Appeal Nos. 2016-2707 and 2016-2708, the Federal Circuit held that when a patent for a...more
Before Moore, Mayer, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Plain claim language will not be narrowed based on a patent’s specification unless the patentee clearly...more
Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more
In July 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision reversing the district court for failing to provide constructions for the claim terms “replacement telephone number,” “modify...more
In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught...more
On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s narrow claim construction, finding that the specification and prosecution history of the patent-at-issue contained clear and unequivocal statements...more
Addressing disclaimer of claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that the patentee clearly and unmistakably disclaimed...more