PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - NCAA Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) Update – Effects of House Settlement
How IP Can Fuel Your Startup's Growth
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
In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more
On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more
The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for a patent directed to geothermal technology. Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Techs. Inc., IPR2014-00665, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024). The claimed invention related to...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
In denying inter partes review in OBM, Inc. & Cholla Energy LLC v. Lancium LLC, the PTAB again made clear that “technical availability” of a reference is not enough to establish it is a printed publication. Here, the PTAB...more
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more
You can be denied a U.S. patent if the application you submit to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not “new” and “non-obvious.” In determining whether something is “new” and “non-obvious,” U.S. patent examiners...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art. Pursuant to...more
On February 1, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) invalidation of a video compression patent challenged by Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”). The Court examined two issues:...more
“Printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is typically construed to encompass any type of document, as long as the document is “publicly accessible.” See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....more
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2018-01436, Paper 40, at 23 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2020), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board clarified how a reference tied to a commercial product could qualify as a “printed...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2490, -2494 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2018) The Federal Circuit affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which...more
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2017-1894, -1936 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2018)- In its only precedential decision in the past three weeks, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and...more
The decision in HVLP02 LLC v. Oxygen Frog turned on whether or not a YouTube video could qualify as a "printed publication," and therefore constitute prior art for patent purposes. As courts tend to assign the term "printed...more