Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
#WorkforceWednesday: Invention Ownership - Why the Tense Matters in Employee IP Provisions - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Patent Dual-application Strategy in China
How to Write a Technical Disclosure for Patent Drafting
The Utility Model System in China
Williams Mullen Manufacturing Edge: IP Considerations for Manufacturers
Risk Prevention Strategies: Ownership of Employee-Developed Inventions and Intellectual Property
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications Part 3: Pitfalls
Healthcare Tech: How Are Licensing Agreements Bridging the Industry Divide?
What Is a Patent and How Do I Get One
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications Part 1: Benefits
Monthly Minute | Commercialization of an Invention
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Walter Isaacson, Part 2
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Patent Searching
PODCAST: Trending Now An IP Podcast - Patent Office Secrecy Orders
IP Monthly Minute | February 2020
JONES DAY TALKS®: When AI Invents: Two Applications Test U.S. Patent Law
6 Key Takeaways | Considerations Before Relying on AIA Prior User Rights
There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision and found that an asserted inventor not named in the application was not a joint inventor because in the context of the entire invention his...more
In 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued six opinions regarding U.S. design patents: three precedential opinions and three unprecedential opinions. Unlike 2021 (where the two precedential opinions on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s interpretation of an arbitration award, finding that the defendant could not “wait until he dies” to pay a portion of the damages award. Nano Gas...more
General Electric Co. (GE) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 3 and 16 of Raytheon Technologies Corp.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,695,751 related to gas turbine engines. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a lower court’s summary judgment that a medical device design patent was not invalid under the on-sale bar. As a result, the patent owner (Junker) lost the $1.25M infringement damages...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
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Whether an asserted prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem...more
Before enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, it was understood that an inventor’s secret commercialization of an invention through sale or use can operate like prior art against that inventor’s subsequent patent...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Reyna, Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where the preamble of a claim merely identifies an intended use and does not impose a structural...more
On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229 (Jan. 22, 2019)....more
Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Appeal No. 2018-1028 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2019) In an appeal from a district court dismissal of a case seeking correction of inventorship, the Federal Circuit reversed...more
Addressing whether the on-sale bar of America Invents Act (AIA) 35 USC § 102(a)(1) applies to confidential sales where specific details are not made public, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the post-AIA...more
If the term "happy hour" in this article's title caught your attention, you may be disappointed by what comes next. This article is actually about limitations on patent protection, which I would argue is just as...more
Originally published in The Journal Record | January 31, 2019. This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, confirming that private sales of an invention may preclude...more
The Supreme Court recently issued its closely-watched decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which has direct implications regarding the scope of § 102 prior art under the America Invents Act...more
Prior to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) prohibited patenting an invention that was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for...more
Inventors should not delay the filing of their patent applications, and preferably should file within one year of any commercialization of the invention, as confirmed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2019....more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the “on sale bar” of the America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unchanged from the pre-AIA version. In so doing, the...more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, the United States Supreme Court held that a prior public sale of a patented product could destroy the novelty of a patent for that product even though there was no...more
U.S. patent law states that any invention that was “on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent” is not eligible for patent protection. The Supreme Court recently confirmed...more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), also called the Patent Reform Act of 2011, was enacted to overhaul the U.S. patent system and harmonize the domestic patent laws with those in the rest of the world. The AIA also created new...more
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the sale of an invention to a party who is contractually obligated to keep the invention...more