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 Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement...more
In Intellectual Tech v. Zebra Technologies 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024), the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s determination that the patent owner plaintiff lacked constitutional standing because it was...more
While a complainant does not need to have constitutional standing to bring a complaint in the International Trade Commission (ITC), at least one complainant must be the owner or exclusive licensee of the underlying asserted...more
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
Intell. Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) On May 1, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of Intellectual Tech’s (“IT’s”) patent infringement claims against Zebra...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the language used in an invention assignment clause was subject to more than one reasonable...more
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Taranto. Appeal from the Central District of California. Summary: Applying California law, the phrase “entirely on my own time” in an employment agreement was found ambiguous and therefore precluded...more
In a split opinion issued Tuesday, and based on language in an assignment clause of a contract, the Federal Circuit overturned a district court's summary judgment that Core Optical lacked standing to sue Nokia, Cisco, and...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. IOENGINE, LLC V. VIDAL (21-1227 Lourie, Chen, Stoll) - Chen, J. The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision in a patent dispute for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacked constitutional and statutory standing....more
This month’s ITC wrap-up focuses on an initial determination in an investigation regarding constitutional standing, which is a requirement at the Commission as in federal court....more
Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337 based on importation of certain TV products, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the patent holder had...more
Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC addresses whether an IPR petitioner can assert Article III standing on appeal based on potential infringement liability and potential preclusive effects on its...more
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more
The US District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the dismissal of a case alleging that the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by denying the plaintiffs’ rulemaking...more
More than a decade ago Congress considered, and rejected, any standing requirements for post-grant proceedings. Congress could hardly have been more explicit. The provisions were debated over a decade. In 2008, statutory...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the substance of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director’s instructions is...more
Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...more