Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its latest newsletter. The newsletter addresses a number of current IP topics, ranging from the constitutionality and judicial reviewability of inter partes review to...more
1/12/2018
/ CAFC ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Lanham Act ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more
6/22/2017
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
America Invents Act ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Disparagement ,
Estoppel ,
First Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: updated predictions on patent policy under the Trump administration; recent happenings...more
3/13/2017
/ Apple v Samsung ,
Certiorari ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Design Patent ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Trump Administration
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the first Supreme Court case to pass upon the post-grant patent review procedures created by the...more
On March 23, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315 do not extend to grounds rejected by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in a decision...more
On March 18, 2016, Judge Lefkow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not extend to prior art that was not reasonably available during...more