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
Venue, in the context of the federal law, refers to the judicial district in which a case can be heard. Venue must be established for each cause of action in a case. In most federal civil litigation, proper venue is...more
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, there has been increased litigation over appropriate venue in patent litigation, including Hatch-Waxman cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that venue in patent infringement...more
In Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2019-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020), the Federal Circuit clarified the venue analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which controls venue for patent...more
The patent landscape experienced a paradigm shift with the May 2017 United States Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. In TC Heartland, venue in patent cases was narrowed to either (1) the...more
This year the District Court for the Western District of Texas is on track to experience almost a 100 percent increase in patent complaints filed compared to 2018. This significant increase is expected to continue into the...more
The Federal Circuit’s ongoing effort to implement TC Heartland—the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 patent venue decision—took another step forward in May with In re BigCommerce, Inc., which vacated and remanded two decisions...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that when a defendant is incorporated in a state that has multiple judicial districts, the defendant will reside in only one of the districts for venue purposes under the patent venue statute, 28...more
It’s been one year since the TC Heartland decision was issued by the Supreme Court, and it’s had a big impact on patent litigation. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (May 22, 2017)....more
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Linn, and Hughes. Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A corporation incorporated in a state having multiple...more
Despite going undisturbed for nearly 30 years, the patent venue statute — 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) — has undergone a near-complete overhaul by appellate courts in just the past 12 months. Starting with the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more
In 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s longstanding interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in patent infringement actions against domestic companies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400; see TC Heartland LLC...more
In our article “Delaware – the New Black for Patent Litigation” published last May, we wrote about the landmark Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands significantly restricting patent suits to...more
In another noteworthy year for patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit issued a number of decisions that altered the patent landscape, including four Supreme Court decisions. The topics of the key cases...more
The Supreme Court recently upended what many practitioners considered to be the status quo on the issue of where venue lies in patent infringement actions. These cases have a special governing provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)...more
For years, patent assertion entities have filed patent lawsuits against retailers in federal court in Texas. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC may give retailers the...more
The Federal Circuit issued guidance yesterday for district courts deciding venue challenges after the Supreme Court’s May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. In In re Micron Technology, Inc.,...more
The court offers clarification on a patent litigation venue issue that has caused “widespread disagreement” nationwide....more
Case Name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., Civ. No. 17-379-LPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146372 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017) (Stark, J.)... Drug Product and U.S. Patent: Eliquis® (apixaban); U.S. Patents Nos....more
On October 20, 2017, District Judge Vernon Broderick (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants' Watters Design, Inc.'s, Essense of Australia, Inc.'s, and David's Bridal, Inc.'s motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more
For decades, companies have been subject to patent infringement lawsuits almost anywhere that they had sales, whether through a physical store or online. Often, based on online sales, the defendant corporation could be...more
Patent law has always been tasked with interpreting law in an ever-shifting factual environment, where well-established principles need to be applied to new technology. Twenty years ago, the Federal Circuit grappled with the...more
In its decision, the Federal Circuit also took the opportunity to clarify the Supreme Court’s recent TC Heartland decision and set forth three general requirements to determine where a defendant maintains “a regular and...more
Brief Summary The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that to find a “required and established place of business” for venue in a civil action for patent infringement, the court must identify “a physical...more
On September 21, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in In re: Cray Inc. clarifying how district courts should determine whether a patent infringement defendant maintains a “regular and...more