Tariffs and Trade Series: What Senior Management Teams Need to Know
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
Two Key Considerations in NIL Deals
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP – AI and Copyright Law Need-to-Knows
Business Better Podcast Episode: Bridging Campuses: Legal Insights on Education Industry Consolidation - Intellectual Property
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - TCPA Compliance and Litigation Update
Podcast - The "I" in FOCI and AI: Innovation, Intelligence, Influence
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
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: Westlaw v. Ross AI - Is This The End of AI Training or The Future of AI Training
Trade Secrets in Hollywood: Lessons from Oscar-Nominated Films - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
The Briefing: Federal District Court Adopts Problematic “Vibe Copyright” Protection in Influencer Fight
The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...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
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
The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more
In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more
CQV CO., LTD. v. MERCK PATENT GMBH - Before Cunningham, Chen, and Mayer. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by failing to explain why it discarded material and unrebutted evidence that a reference...more
SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC V. SISVEL S.P.A. Before Moore, Schall, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by finding method-claim steps connected by “and” to be conditional and by never...more
In a precedential opinion issued on March 4, 2025, in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No, 23-2054, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction and ruling that product-by-process...more
The concept of the "person of ordinary skill in the art" (POSITA) remains pivotal in patent law, particularly in evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and compliance with enablement and written description requirements...more
Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement. Duration Media...more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
Determining whether a claimed invention is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 often depends on whether the prior art provides a clear motivation for modifying existing knowledge. Central to this analysis is the concept of a...more
When there are fewer design elements in a design claim or when the individual elements of the design seem commonplace in isolation, it can be easy to overlook the inventive effort that went into developing a design. Rather...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 the Federal Circuit always says never, patent publications...more
While courts have often warned that hindsight bias should be avoided when assessing whether a patented invention would have been obvious to the skilled person, the application of this principle can be challenging in practice....more
Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...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 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 January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025), addressing whether a...more
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 14, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Lourie and Stark....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
On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...more
Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark - Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing date, not its publication date. Samsung filed a petition for IPR of a Lynk Labs...more