New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
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)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
Greater Speed and Efficiency: Steps IP Offices Around the World Are Taking to Streamline the Patent Process
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Patent Dual-application Strategy in China
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
New and Non-Obvious: The Nuts-and-Bolts Episode on Patent Law
5 Key Takeaways | Current Perspectives Around the Convergence of Life Sciences and IT
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...more
The explosion of artificial intelligence has raised some challenging questions in patent law, particularly with prior art, or the body of knowledge available prior to the filing of patent application. Two of the most...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to...more
Naming a person who is not a proper inventor on your non-provisional patent application can be a costly, time-consuming error to fix, and if not fixed ultimately results in an invalid patent. Typically, time and money are two...more
Many life science companies are using AI/ML to identify new disease targets and new therapeutics, predict the efficacy and toxicity of potential clinical therapeutic candidates, design clinical trials and dosing or treatment...more
In its first en banc patent decision since 2018, the Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding obviousness test for design patents under 35 U.S.C. 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, No. 21‑2348 slip op. (Fed....more
On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision (full court, instead of the typical three-judge panel) in LKQ Corp. et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturning the long-standing obviousness test...more
The USPTO published a request for comments (RFC) on April 30th, focusing on how advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) may impact the USPTO’s assessment of patentability governing (i) what may qualify as prior art and...more
Takeaways: - Patent owner requested reexaminations are not an admission of claim unpatentability. - Patent owners can and should control the reexamination request narrative. Patent owners must consider the pros and...more
In a precedential opinion issued on April 11, 2024 in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 22-2153, 23-1952, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a Petitioner may challenge the validity of an issued patent in an IPR proceeding “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Public accessibility has been held to...more
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by the...more
Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...more
What You Need to Know The USPTO has reiterated its position that Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. does not apply to patents and patent applications that fall under the America Invents Act (AIA) by designating...more
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
A patent does not give the owner the right to do anything. Rather, it gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the claimed invention, which most...more
The Background: There has been a growing trend to invalidate European patents by challenging their formal priority and using intervening prior art. The Technical Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office ("EPO") referred...more
In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...more
This case addresses whether patents relating to methods and systems for connecting users based on their answers to polling questions claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Keeping costs in check is critical when pursuing patent protection, in particular for small and mid-sized U.S. companies. In this podcast, Procopio Partner Ernest Huang of Silicon Valley and AOMB Partner Ernest Baeten of the...more
This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more