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
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Artificial Intelligence: The Growing Role of AI on Patents
Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
Palo Alto Networks (PAN) filed a petition for inter partes review of Centripetal Networks’ patent—U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903—which is directed to a computing system for correlating packets in communication networks with a...more
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ELEKTA INC. [OPINION] (2021-2099, 2021-2100, 8/29/22) (Hughes, Linn, and Stoll) - Stoll, J. Dismissing-in-part the appeal from Best Medical...more
No Assembly, No Infringement – Federal Circuit Declines to Expand the “Final Assembler” Theory of Direct Infringement In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Appeal No. 20-1700 the Federal Circuit held that...more
Last month, in a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) obviousness determination regarding Alacritech’s computer networking patent because the...more
In Linksmart Wireless Tech., LLC v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. May 8, 2020) the Court addressed disputed claim terms in U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 (the “’459 Patent”), Linksmart had...more
Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition. Samsung Electronics America, Inc....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
In re Rambus, Inc. - Addressing a finding of anticipation by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more