Can Tattoos Be Copyrighted? The Legal Battle Over Mike Tyson's Iconic Ink — No Infringement Intended Podcast
Trade Secrets on Trial: Strategic Decisions for the Courtroom - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Trademark Mayhem – Lady Gaga Gets Sued for Trademark Infringement
The Briefing: Everyone Loves the HBO Series 'White Lotus,' Except Duke University
House Final Settlement Hearing: Key Insights and Future Implications for NIL — Highway to NIL Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
From Ideas to Ownership: Navigating IP and Employment Law Through the Lens of The Social Network - No Infringement Intended Podcast
From Ideas to Ownership: Navigating IP and Employment Law Through the Lens of The Social Network — Hiring to Firing Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: ER Redux? The Anti-SLAPP Motion That Didn’t Stick
The Briefing: ER Redux? The Anti-SLAPP Motion That Didn’t Stick
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Wolf Greenfield’s New Shareholders
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
Recognizing and Avoiding Trademark Scams and Hoaxes
(Podcast) The Briefing: Trademark Turbulence – Oakland vs SFO in Trademark Showdown
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that belated statements are not relevant but litigation funding...more
APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial And Appeal Board. A patent owner forfeits its argument that an IPR petitioner lacks standing under 35 U.S.C....more
Takeaways - - Expired patents may be eligible for reexamination. - Owner’s options during reexamination of an expired patent are severely limited. Similar to reexamination practice, which has long allowed reexamination...more
Because there are different burdens of proof in IPRs and district court, collateral estoppel does not preclude a patent owner from asserting claims that are immaterially different from claims canceled in an IPR....more
On, January 27, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on certain claims of Gesture Technology...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
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...more
The PTAB recently denied IPR institution in Sophos v. Open Text because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted reference was, in fact, prior art. IPR2023-00732, Paper 23 (November 2, 2023)....more
In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more
The PTAB recently granted institution of inter partes review despite the Patent Owner not receiving the petition for the proceeding until three business days after the statutory deadline. See Kahoot! ASA and Kahoot Edu, Inc.,...more
In Astellas v. Osaka University (UPC_CFI_75/2023), by decision of 21 September 2023, the UPC Munich Central Division denied a third party access to the case file, specifically to Astellas’ revocation action, which was...more
The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more
This case addresses the “skilled and diligent searcher” standard used for establishing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) estoppel (or lack thereof). In particular, this case establishes: (1) which party bears the burden of proof...more
The Federal Circuit recently held that clarifying and §112-based amendments are allowed in addition to narrowing amendments used to overcome prior art teachings in Motions to Amend during PTAB proceedings. In American...more
Colleges and universities may be leaving money on the table with under-utilized patent portfolios. The time is right, as the law has shifted in favor of patent owners, both in inter partes review litigation before the Patent...more