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 an ideal world, patent eligibility would be a simple, clear, and non-controversial inquiry. After all, the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is to inform the public which types of inventions are eligible for patenting and which...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued a study entitled “Patent eligible subject matter: Public views on the current jurisprudence in the United States.” The report was prepared in response to a...more
In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided a number of cases, including Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, which...more
Patent eligibility is a bit of a mess these days. Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Alice v. CLS Bank decision six years ago, the distinction between what might be subject matter that can be patented and what is...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, patent stakeholders have faced many difficulties navigating the world of patent-eligibility. Through many Federal Circuit decisions and Guidance given by the U.S....more
It has nearly been ten years since the Supreme Court’s landmark Mayo v. Prometheus (132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)) decision, in which the Court established a two-prong test for determining patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §...more
This article discusses challenges in prosecuting bioinformatics patent applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Bioinformatics generally refers to an interdisciplinary field in which computer...more
Partner Mauricio Uribe hosted a webinar presenting, "Trends and Changes in View of the USPTO's Updated Revised Guidance." Topics Include: • Summary of the October 2019 Update to the Revised Guidance •...more
On Friday I will be speaking at the AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting, on a panel discussing patent eligibility issues for life sciences inventions. My topic relates to what the USPTO refers to as “nature-based products,” but...more
Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more
The federal appeals court with jurisdiction over questions of patent law has consistently held that methods of diagnosing a disease or other biological condition violate the Supreme Court’s ban on patenting “natural...more
In United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc., Judge Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado determined that UCANN's CBD patent was not invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court reached its...more
On April 18, 2019, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), along with Representatives Doug Collins (R-GA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), and Steve Stivers (R-OH), released a bipartisan framework for 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Yesterday Democrat and Republican legislators from both the Senate and the House of Representatives released a one page outline of a proposal to change the law of patent eligibility. The legislators supporting this proposal...more
Over the past six years, since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories, it has become more and more evident that correction of the path embarked upon by the...more
Under the U.S. Patent Act, one can patent “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Common exceptions to what can be patented include laws of...more
In view of recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued two new guidelines: revised 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, and Examining...more
In a notice of proposed rulemaking announced January 4, 2019 and published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, Director Andrei Iancu of the Patent and Trademark Office has seized the initiative in proposing clear...more
Decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit over the past decade have wrestled with the question that 35 U.S.C. §101 was intended to answer: What is eligible for patent protection? The text of §101 says a patent...more
On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidance for evaluating patent subject matter eligibility, which became effective on January 7, 2019. The purpose of the 2019 guidance is to provide more...more
The Situation The legal uncertainty surrounding patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the United States Code ("35 U.S.C. § 101") has been the subject of much attention, as it has become difficult for...more
The USPTO has issued updated guidance for examiners and administrative patent judges (APJs) relating to subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and examining computer-implemented functional claim limitations under 35...more
For the last several years, a major part of prosecuting software-related patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has been dealing with the USPTO’s inconsistent interpretation of patent subject-matter...more
On Friday, January 4, 2019, the USPTO announced revised guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as well as new guidance for the application of Section 112 to computer-implemented inventions,...more
On Monday, January 7, 2019, a revised guidance for subject matter eligibility (USPTO Section 101 Revised Guidance) will take effect at the USPTO. With the newly revised guidance, the USPTO aims to clarify and standardize the...more