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
Last month the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the Lashify case that significantly broadens the opportunity for companies to bring a lawsuit before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC is known for...more
Given the continued challenges in policing the burgeoning ENDS marketplace, as previously discussed in Part I of this article, in mid-2024 FDA and DOJ announced the establishment of a federal multi-agency task force to combat...more
The Federal Circuit has overturned the U.S. International Trade Commission’s longstanding interpretation of section 337(a)(3)(B). Complainant Lashify, Inc. appealed an adverse decision by the U.S. International Trade...more
On February 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision reversing the International Trade Commission finding that US Synthetic’s composition of matter claim was not...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
Over the last 15 years, the discussion over the types of subject matter that are considered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been mostly focused on the software and biological fields. Several years ago, the Federal...more
US SYNTHETIC CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit found claims reciting magnetic properties of a claimed...more
Welcome to the first issue of the BakerHostetler Life Sciences Newsletter! Within it you will find an overview of noteworthy developments in the life sciences space and at BakerHostetler. ...more
On March 24, 2025, the United States Patent and Tradmark Office (“USPTO”) issued a new Memorandum providing guidance on discretionary denials (or “Fintiv denials”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges based on...more
After rescinding the June 2022 guidance regarding Fintiv, the PTAB issued updates to how they will consider discretionary denial issues under Section 314(a) on Monday. ...more
Governed by 19 U.S.C. § 337, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is empowered to investigate unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. The ITC can be a powerful forum for owners of U.S....more
On March 24, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick issued a memo directed to the members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) explaining why the USPTO’s June 2022 Fintiv memo was rescinded and how...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
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the...more
LASHIFY, INC. V. ITC - Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Warehousing, quality control, distribution, sales, and marketing expenses incurred in connection with an imported...more
Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Before: Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from ITC Investigation. The Federal Circuit expands the economic prong of the domestic-industry analysis to include domestic spending on...more
Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States....more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that Section 337’s...more
On March 5, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245, vacating in part the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
On this episode of Ropes & Gray's ITC-focused podcast series, Talkin' Trade, IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Patrick Lavery discuss a groundbreaking Federal Circuit decision in Lashify v. ITC. This pivotal...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
On February 28, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rescinded former Director Kathi Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post-grant proceedings running parallel to...more
The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...more