What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more
On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768 Patent...more
Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Apr. 30, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Taranto and Stark. Fintiv sued PayPal for infringement of four patents directed to “cloud-based...more
On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit rendered an opinion in Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. surrounding U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688 (the '688 patent"). This marks the second time that the Federal Circuit has weighed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more
In a patent-infringement case involving fiber-optic-cable assemblies, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke (E.D.N.Y.) recently rejected defendants’ arguments that two terms in the patent claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act - This chart summarizes the case name, presiding judge, drug, and patents-at-issue in all federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to...more
Reported settlements in federal district court cases - This chart summarizes the case name, drug, patents-in-suit, and publicly available terms for reported settlements in federal district court cases that are filed pursuant...more
On April 18, 2025, the Federal Circuit remained consistent with previous Alice decisions by holding that four machine learning patents involved in a dispute between Recentive Analytics, Inc. and Fox Corp. were ineligible...more
In a February 10, 2025 order, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the application of the collateral estoppel doctrine to patent claims asserted in a district court infringement action where other claims in the same...more
In Ams-Osram USA Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2185, the Federal Circuit held that under Texas law, a trade secret becomes publicly accessible on the earliest date it could be reverse engineered...more
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
On April 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") issued a significant decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), affirming...more
Key Takeaway: Just as over a million businesses use Amazon web servers, many independent sellers also use Amazon warehouses to store their inventory. More than 60% of sales in the Amazon store come from independent sellers,...more
Tradjenta® (linagliptin) - Case Name: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Civ. No. 23-685-CFC, 2025 WL 71979 (D. Del. Jan. 10, 2025) (Connolly, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Tradjenta® (linagliptin);...more
Trade Commission is a federal agency whose responsibilities include investigating and where appropriate barring the import of goods resulting from a variety of unfair trade practices. It is headed by a bipartisan six-membered...more
Lonsurf® (tipiracil) - Case Name: Taiho Pharma Co. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd., No. 19-2342-JLH (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2025) (Hall, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Lonsurf® (tipiracil); U.S. Patent No. 10,457,666 (“the ’666...more
United States Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks (E.D.N.Y.) recommended that Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Wiesel’s (“Wiesel”) action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,514 (the “’514...more
Simbrinza® (brinzolamide / brimonidine) - Case Name: Alcon Inc. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., Civ. No. 22-1422-WCB, 2025 WL 457119 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2025) (Bryson, C.J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Simbrinza®...more
On April 15, 2025, Biocon announced it reached a settlement agreement with Regeneron, dismissing CAFC Appeal No. 24-2002 and Case No. 1:22-cv-00061 (N.D.W. Va.) / MDL 1:24-md-03103 (N.D.W. Va.) and allowing the...more
INOMax® (nitric oxide) - Case Name: Mallinckrodt Pharms. Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC, Civ. No. 22-1648-RGA, 2025 WL 472557 (D. Del. Feb. 12, 2025) (Andrews, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: INOMax® (nitric...more
On April 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit brought by Recentive Analytics, Inc. against Fox Corporation. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v....more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 18, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Recentive sued Fox for infringing four patents that...more
On April 18, in Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., which presented a question of first impression, the Federal Circuit held that claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data...more