5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
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
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more
Current written description jurisprudence can make it difficult to obtain broad antibody patents, leading practitioners to explore alternative claiming strategies in an effort to bypass the limited scope afforded under the...more
On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more
In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more
Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a Jepson claim unpatentable where the specification did not provide adequate written description for the portion of the claim purporting to recite what was already well...more
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week focuses on the written description requirement...more
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC. Before Moore, Linn, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patent application that was silent about a...more
Indivior UK Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A., Appeal Nos. 2020-2073, -2142 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 24, 2021) - Our Case of the Week this week focuses on the written description requirement when the patent claims a range. The...more
Inventors are generally counseled to file a patent application as soon as they have a patentable invention to avoid potential forfeiture of important rights in today’s first inventor-to-file system. However,...more
In Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc. No. 20-1037 (July 1, 2020), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether references to publicly available databases or deposits could provide adequate written description support for...more
Honeywell owns U.S. Patent 9,157,017, which claims automotive air-conditioning systems. The application to the ’017 patent had originally described and recited claims for flouroalkane compounds for use in refrigeration...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect? When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the design is ornamental, for example a pattern, on an article such...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidity decision in an interference proceeding, finding that the written description of the patent at issue did not describe...more
In reversing a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the level of written description required to show possession of a claimed invention “varies...more
QUAKE v. LO - Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Summary: A claimed method must be expressly described as a whole in order to satisfy the written description...more
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from a jury trial, the Federal Circuit addressed numerous issues...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In SimpleAir, Inc. v Google LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule...more
On September 20, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the summary judgement that Abbott’s U.S. Patent No. 5,344,915 (“the ’915 Patent”) was sufficiently supported by the written...more