Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Podcast - Legislative Implications of Loper Bright and Corner Post Decisions
#WorkforceWednesday®: After the Block - What’s Next for Employers and Non-Competes? - Spilling Secrets Podcast - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
The Future of Chevron Deference - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
Part Two: The MFN Drug Pricing Rule and the Rebate Rule: Where Do We Go From Here?
Part One: Two new Medicare Drug Pricing Rules in One Day: What are the MFN and the Rebate Drug Pricing Rules?
Employment Law Now IV-78- BREAKING: US DOL Issues New Regulations After Federal Court Invalidated Old Regulations
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
Podcast - Chamber of Commerce v. Internal Revenue Service
On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office fundamentally changed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) initially considers petitions in post grant proceedings under the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more
The PTAB denied institution of a second inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Aylo Freesites (“Petitioner”) after having previously instituted inter partes review of Petitioner’s first petition related to the same...more
In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the result-effective variable doctrine can apply even when there is no overlap between a claimed...more
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...more
Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2299, -2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023) - In a decade-old case that has raised a number of issues relating to design patents...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - MEDYTOX, INC. v. GALDERMA S.A. [OPINION] (2022-1165, 6/27/2023) (Dyk, Reyna, and Stark) - Reyna, J. The Court affirmed a decision by the PTAB in a post-grant review denying an...more
Apple Inc. v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit allowed Apple’s challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Fintiv rules to proceed, at least...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-1942, -1975 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2022) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reviewed an IPR decision and addressed the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Last week the Federal Circuit judges geared up for their October argument session and perhaps enjoyed the beautiful fall weather in Washington. But the Court still found time to issue a dozen decisions in a wide range of...more
In a non-precedential decision, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, once the Board decided Ground 3 was too imprecise and would not be...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
In Baker Hughes Oilfield v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by finding certain instituted claims obvious on grounds it had indicated in its institution that...more
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated patent owner Qualcomm’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not giving it notice and a chance to...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more
The Federal Circuit, and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals before it, generally reviewed decisions by the Patent and Trademark Office under the same standard applied to district court decisions, whether the factual...more
Samsung sought inter partes review of M&K’s U.S. Patent No. 9,113,163. The Board held all claims unpatentable. M&K appealed, arguing that the Board erred by relying on references that do not qualify as prior art printed...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all...more
FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Interactive Games’ patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and found all but dependent claim 6 to be unpatentable as obvious. ...more
Although the Federal Circuit has had a busy January, last week was light on precedential decisions (just one, in a case from the MSPB). Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly...more