(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
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
Was the classic song “Over The Rainbow” plagiarized? How about a claim of copyright infringement against the script for “The Holdovers?” AI Legal strategies switch to claims of CMI removal
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
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
8 Key Takeaways | The Presumption of Irreparable Harm After the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - USPTO Suspends Action on Trademark Applications Targeting Names of Public Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: USPTO Suspends Action on Trademark Applications Targeting Names of Public Figures
Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Paralegal Insights: A Collaborative Trademark Practice Series 2
In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently addressed both the timing requirements and procedures for filing a Sotera stipulation before the Board in, BMW of North America LLC v. Northstar Systems LLC, IPR2023-01017...more
On November 6, 2023, the PTAB issued an decision instituting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 B2 (“the ’009 patent”) in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 16 (PTAB...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) maintains a list of all PTAB precedential and informative decisions organized by subject matter. These precedential decisions establish “binding authority concerning major...more
In a nonprecedential opinion on remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director-granted request for review, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) reconstrued...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently instituted two of Mylan’s petitions seeking Inter Partes Review of Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 9,669,069 B2 (the “’069 Patent,” subject of IPR2021-00880) and U.S....more
On December 8th, the PTAB published a Final Rule, formalizing a number of PTAB practices dictated by case law and described in the current Trial Practice Guide. The one substantive change of note is the removal to deference...more
One of the most notable recent changes in post-grant proceedings was replacing the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) claim construction standard with the Phillips standard used to construe claims in federal court....more
In General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., Case No. IPR2017-00491 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (Weatherly, APJ) (designated precedential on Sept. 9, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute...more
On July 15, 2019, the USPTO released a second update to Trial Practice Guide for AIA proceedings. The 64-page update reflects some of the recent opinions that the Board has designated as precedential and includes helpful...more
On July 15, 2019, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG) (“2nd Update”), providing additional guidance for trial practice before the Board. The...more
On July 14, 2019, the USPTO published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide with additional guidance about trial practice before the Board. This latest update, while lengthy, does not introduce many significant...more
On March 15, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched a pilot program that implements significant changes to motion to amend practice in AIA trials. The Office states that its goal in proposing...more
Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018), reminds us that representations to the PTAB can have consequences in district court litigation, even outside the estoppel context. ...more
On October 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published notice of a final rule change adopting the claim construction standard applied by federal courts for use by the Patent Trial and Board...more
The USPTO has published a final rule, changing the claim construction standard applied during post-grant proceedings (inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business methods reviews) before the Office’s Patent...more
On July 26, 2018, the Silicon Valley Regional Office of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) hosted a Judicial Conference by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). During the conference, a panel of...more
We are now a little over a month since the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, where the Court held that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability...more
As explained in a prior client alert, two weeks ago the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu holding that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of...more
On April 26, 2018, the USPTO issued a one-page guidance document on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, on AIA trial proceedings....more
The PTAB rules state that “[t]he petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a). Prompt service is important in IPRs...more
In a split decision that drew separate opinions from each of the panel members, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision to enter an adverse judgment against a patentee, even though the patentee had properly...more
In an order entered June 30, 2017, the PTAB denied a motion by counsel for patent owner Purple Leaf, LLC (“Counsel”) to withdraw from representation in a trio of IPRs (IPR2016-01720, IPR2016-01721, and IPR2016-01722). Counsel...more
The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more
Many patent owners have not yet had to defend against an inter partes review (IPR), but the popularity of this proceeding increases the chances that they will encounter it down the road if they have not already faced one....more