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
A patent challenger identified a witness as a person with relevant knowledge in Rule 26(a) disclosures and interrogatory responses, and the patentee deposed the witness. Surely the witness can testify at trial, right? The...more
The Federal Circuit is charged with disposing of the mandamus petitions that regularly arise from decisions denying transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in Texas patent litigation. The Fifth Circuit, whose law the Federal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a district court to transfer a patent infringement case from Texas to California because the district court had wrongly assessed facts relating to the convenience of...more
In Re: Juniper Networks, Inc. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Taranto. Per Curiam. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: A party’s relatively...more
Drafting the expert declaration is another critical task for Patent Owners during the inter partes review (“IPR”) discovery period. As noted in our previous post, IPR expert witnesses provide declarations as affirmative...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
While those interested in the outcome await the April 9th filing of motions authorized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Interference Nos. 106,126 (between Senior Party Toolgen...more
This month, the Eastern District of Texas issued four opinions across two cases that considered motions to strike portions of expert reports that were based on allegedly untimely disclosures....more
At the end of October, in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of...more
The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California because the latter had some local interest in the case, while the...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
Since Judge Alan D. Albright took the bench in the Western District of Texas in September 2018, the number of patent litigation cases in that district has risen exponentially....more
The ITC recently issued an order rescheduling a hearing from June 22, 2020 to July 20, 2020 and extending the target date for completion of the corresponding investigation to March 5, 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic....more
Addressing a jury verdict of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing trial testimony regarding obviousness from a lay witness, and remanded...more
Expert witness testimony is a frequent (almost ubiquitous) feature of patent litigation, if only because questions of the state of the art or the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art are almost always at...more
In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a district court denied Hulu’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to its trial-supervising in-house attorney. The court agreed that Sound View may question Hulu’s attorney live,...more
While PTAB proceedings are ordinarily decided “on the papers,” in certain rare cases the Board will permit live witness testimony at the oral hearing. The Board’s precedential decision in K-40 v. Escort explains that...more
Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more
On July 10, 2019, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel designated Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB July 21, 2014), as precedential. By way of background, during PTAB proceedings, direct...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through...more
On July 10, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB, July 21, 2014), which concerned the rules governing depositions in the...more
In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more
Generally, the PTAB does not allow live testimony at oral argument, but recently it designated one of its 2014 decisions as precedential to give guidance as to when the Board will allow live testimony at oral argument. K-40...more
Depositions are an important, yet sometimes overlooked, part of AIA proceedings, such as inter partes review (“IPR”) trial proceedings. It is important to understand that IPR depositions differ in significant ways – both in...more
Helios Software, LLC, et al. v. Spectorsoft Corporation, C.A. No. 12-81-LPS -MPT, May 22, 2015 Stark, C. J. The court makes various pretrial rulings in advance of a June 15, 2015 jury trial. ...more