AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
EV Tech Series: IP Enforcement at the ITC and Federal Courts - Battery + Storage Podcast
Trade secret litigation after the Defend Trade Secrets Act
A changing competitive landscape: the role of the ITC in the biosimilars space
IP|Trend: International Remedies for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
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
On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that narrows the scope of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), resolving a longstanding district...more
On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision resolving the ongoing patent litigation between AliveCor and Apple concerning methods of cardiac monitoring purportedly employed in certain of Apple’s Watches. The...more
On March 24, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) released new guidance that clarifies application of the Fintiv factors when reviewing validity challenges simultaneously asserted at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more
In a recent newsflash, we discussed the USPTO’s withdrawal of its 2022 memorandum that detailed how the PTAB would exercise its discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review and post-grant review. New guidance from the...more
Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. United States, Appeal No. 2023-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) Our Case of the Week, in the words of its author, Circuit Judge Stark, “is not actually a patent case. It is, instead, a tax case.” In...more
On Friday, the USPTO rescinded its June 21, 2022, memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Fintiv memo”). The USPTO notice makes...more
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
As we predicted in our 2023 report, 2024 was a banner year for design rights in the U.S. and elsewhere. In last year’s report, we noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed to consider en banc...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...more
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more
Addressing a final determination by the US International Trade Commission of no violation of § 337, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the...more
Roku, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal No. 2022-1386 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2024) In an appeal from the International Trade Commission (the “Commission”), the Federal Circuit addressed a number of findings...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2037, -2038 (Fed. Cir. 2022) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered how to treat a prior art reference in which the alleged teaching of...more
In a consolidated appeal from the International Trade Commission (Commission) and two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...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
Main Quest: Does Your Gaming Stream Violate the Copyright Act? Streaming platforms, such as Twitch, Mixer and YouTube Gaming, are quickly becoming household names, with daily viewership rates that rival those of more...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - BioDelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019) - Our case of the week this week focuses on Section 314(d)—the...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,937,394 B2 despite Patent Owner’s claims that Petitioner engaged in gamesmanship and asserted references and combinations...more
On May 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Papst Licensing GmbH v. Samsung Elec. America, Inc. In that case, the Federal Circuit confirmed, based on the issue preclusion principles laid out...more
The inventor on the patent, Dr. Cheriton, was employed by Cisco as a technical advisor and chief product architect at the time he filed the application that led to the patent. Dr. Cheriton assigned all rights to the...more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more