Podcast Episode 187: Will AI Kill SEO?
State AG Pulse | The Laboratories of Democracy
Interview With Ayesha Minhaj, Google - Digital Planning Podcast
Insurtech Briefly Podcast: Licensing, Google and Lead Gens
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Andy Warhol's Prince Prints: Not Fair Use!? (Part Two)
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Andy Warhol's Prince Prints: Not Fair Use!? (Part Two)
Episode 169 -- DOJ Files Antitrust Case Against Google
Do I need permission to use images from Google on my website?
Data Privacy Trouble Surrounding Google Street View Cars Presents Lesson for Smaller Companies
Weekly Brief: New Round of Layoffs Hit Law Firms
FCC to Create Free National Super WiFi Network? Not Anytime Soon—Dana Frix
...We round out our series with a summary of several developments around the world that focus on the adequacy of the various jurisdictions' laws in addressing the opportunities and risks arising from generative AI....more
In response to Google L.L.C.’s (“Google”) and other’s petitions for inter partes review (“I.P.R.”) of two patents owned by Parus Holdings, Inc. (“Parus”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent...more
PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: PTAB did not err in declining to consider...more
Derivation Showing Overcome by Evidence of Respondent’s Prior Conception in Rare Derivation Proceeding - The Board issued a decision in a rare derivation proceeding filed by Global Health Solutions LLC (“Petitioner”)...more
The USPTO published Revision 07.2022 of the Ninth Edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A change summary is available here....more
CyWee Group Ltd. (“CyWee”) has been bouncing between the Federal Circuit and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) with its administrative challenges after two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings invalidated the claims...more
Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...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
On December 8 2022, the Federal Circuit in Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc. affirmed in part and reversed in part the PTAB’s final written decision of an IPR holding that Google failed to prove that certain...more
USPTO Director Considers Changes to Director Review Process - Recently, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal stated that she is rethinking the Director Review process and is considering updating the current guidance on Director...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - UNILOC 2017 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2021-1498, 2021-1500, 2021-1501, 2021-1502, 2021-1503, 2021-1504, 2021-1505, 2021-1506, 2021-1507, 2021-1508, 2021-1509, 11/4/2022) (Lourie,...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR - In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC v. HULU, LLC [OPINION] (2021-1998, 05/11/2022) (Prost, Meyer, Taranto) - Taranto, J. The Court vacated and remanded the district court’s grant of...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
GOOGLE LLC v. IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC. Before Dyk, Schall, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For purposes of determining whether a reference was prior art, the Board has an obligation...more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....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
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - In re: Google LLC, Appeal No. 2019-126 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit granted mandamus to dismiss or transfer a patent infringement suit for...more
The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can institute inter partes review (IPR) on a ground not advanced by the petitioner, as well as whether the general knowledge of a person...more
In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that although the PTAB erred by instituting review based on a ground not advanced in the petition, the PTAB...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, et al., Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2020) - In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential decision this week, the Court affirmed a PTAB finding...more
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC et al., Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir., January 30, 2020). Google filed an IPR against Philips’ patent relating to a method of forming a media presentation on a client device from...more
Relying on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has articulated its reluctance to review “follow-on” petitions challenging the validity of patents that have been previously subjected to inter partes review....more
Federal Circuit Determines Time-Barred Petitioner Joined to an IPR Has Appellate Standing - In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech., Appeal Nos. 2017-2088, -2089, -2091, the Federal Circuit held that a...more