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
In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more
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
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
In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 18, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Recentive sued Fox for infringing four patents that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as...more
SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more
When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more
Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
On March 31, 2025, Judge Oetken granted summary judgment for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Samsung”) in an infringement suit brought against it by Dynamics Inc. (“Dynamics”). Dynamics Inc v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability determination, finding that the Board failed to consider the entire record regarding the prior art status of a...more
The landscape of design patent law has recently evolved with the introduction of a new standard for determining obviousness. For decades, the Rosen-Durling test was used to assess obviousness of design patents....more
Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...more
A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...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
It is well established that “a petitioner in an inter partes review … is not permitted to assert a ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Dexcowin Golabl, Inc. v. Aribex, Inc., IPR2016-00436, Paper 12 (PTAB July 7,...more
On January 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. clarified that inter partes review challenges may be “based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications...more
On January 14, in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that a published patent application can be prior art in an inter partes review (IPR) based on the application’s filing date, not the...more
Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that appellants Bearbox and Austin Storms—Bearbox’s...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more