Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
In Natera Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against NeoGenomics in patent infringement litigation involving Natera's U.S. Patent Nos....more
In two companion appeals relating to patents over television interactive programming guides, the Federal Court of Appeal clarified that a successful patent plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the defendant’s profits...more
In Celanese Int’l Corp. v. ITC, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the on-sale bar such that the sale of a product made using a secret process would no longer invalidate later-sought...more
On August 13, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, authored by Judge Lourie, in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 24-1061, which limits the...more
Addressing for the first time whether an invalidity order merges with a voluntary dismissal for purposes of finality, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an interlocutory order merges with the final...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court ruling on an alleged misappropriation of trade secrets for blood analysis technology....more
In In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a later-expiring patent can be invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in view of an earlier-expiring,...more
In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed...more
In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132;...more
On appeal from an interference proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that found the claims of the senior party’s patent were not invalid as time-barred...more
Patent owners need to be wary of the pitfalls when attempting to procure follow on patents to an existing technology. It could turn out your own patents could be used against others in the portfolio to render them invalid or...more
Addressing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that patents related to computer visualizations of medical scans were patent...more
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its...more
Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is revolutionizing the way patents are enforced in Europe, and McDermott’s intellectual property team is here to help you navigate this dynamic landscape. Our Legal Lens on the Unified Patent...more
In Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al., Nos. 22-1493, 22-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2023), Sierra Wireless challenged claims 1-10 of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”) in an inter partes review....more
The Federal Circuit held in Thaler v. Vidal that an “inventor” must be a human. During the patent drafting process, the human inventors meet with the patent attorney to describe the invention. In this meeting, the patent...more
In our annual review of developments in Canadian patent law, we considered over 60 patent decisions reported last year. This article highlights statutory changes and a selection of interesting points addressed in the reported...more
On 3 November 2023, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague in which life sciences company AstraZeneca (“AZ”) was held not to be liable towards health insurer Menzis for the...more
Naturally occurring compounds generically referred to as steviols are used as sugar substitutes because they impart sweetness without contributing calories. These compounds exist in different forms, with some being sweeter...more
Recently, the new Rules for the Implementation of Patent Law (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") has been approved and promulgated by the State Council, and will come into force on January 20, 2024. There are many...more
Canatex Completion Sol. Inc. vs. Wellmatics LLC, et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-03306, Dkt. No. 100 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2023) - Found a mistake in your patent? You might want to get it fixed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more