Crashing and Burning: What Companies Can Learn From the Apple TV+ Series WeCrashed - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance in the power of Patent-Office rulemaking and enforcement, and the influence it has on patent owners and challengers alike....more
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more
What is the difference between a traditional trademark and trade dress protection? Traditional Trademarks - According to the USPTO - A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things...more
BERTINI v. APPLE INC. Before Moore, Taranto and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Tacking a mark for one good or service does not grant priority for every other good or service in the...more
Last week, in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit left intact Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s ruling of unenforceability based on prosecution laches and deprived Personalized Media...more
APPLE INC. v. VIDAL - Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Judicial review is available to determine whether the PTO...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
Generic terms—terms that are primarily understood to be the name of a product or service—cannot be trademarks. For example, one cannot register APPLE as a trademark for (you guessed it) apples. When a trademark becomes...more
Earlier today, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued interim guidance regarding the application of the factors the PTAB considers in determining whether to institute an AIA post-grant proceeding where there is parallel district...more
The Pitch newsletter is a monthly update of legal issues and news affecting or related to the music, film and television, fine arts, media, professional athletics, eSports, and gaming industries. The Pitch features a diverse...more
On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
Executive Summary - The 2013 statement was a favor to Apple and Google and was widely misinterpreted and misused (often intentionally by opportunistic infringers found by courts and/or the ITC to be “unwilling). It was...more
On January 18, the Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of certiorari from both Apple and Mylan Laboratories. Each company sought to challenge the NHK/Fintiv framework that was developed by the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
On Oct. 28, 2021, the Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC et al. (No. 21-118). The government argued that the Federal Circuit...more
Bulk-Filed Patent Applications Claiming Distant Priority Trigger Prosecution Laches - In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 18-2390, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO met its burden to prove prosecution laches for bulk-filed...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
From 2016 to 2020, Apple bought the most AI companies. Of the AI companies Apple acquired during this time, the following appear to provide technology (e.g., vehicular technology, visual or image processing, or facial...more
On March 9, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed several inter partes review (IPR) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to the estoppel provision 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc....more
In a consolidated appeal from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple, Inc. challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that Voip-Pal.com, Inc.’s patents were not obvious over the prior...more
Last week, four major technology companies – Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel – brought suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), challenging its authority to reject petitions for inter...more
In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more