New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
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
(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
Intellectual Property In Department of Defense Contracting
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for May 2024 covers three decisions addressing amendments to infringement contentions, stays while similar actions proceed, and personal jurisdiction over holding companies....more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - MEDYTOX, INC. v. GALDERMA S.A. [OPINION] (2022-1165, 6/27/2023) (Dyk, Reyna, and Stark) - Reyna, J. The Court affirmed a decision by the PTAB in a post-grant review denying an...more
Addressing protective order violations, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit largely vacated a district court’s sanctions order. The Court explained that sanctions must comply with due process, barring parties from...more
Precedential Opinion Addresses Conclusory Expert Declarations - In a precedential opinion in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2022), the Board denied institution of an inter partes...more
On January 9, in In re: Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated a transfer order issued by the Eastern District of Texas, thereby limiting a foreign defendant’s ability to negate venue in one court simply by...more
Addressing a challenge of the Alice/Mayo framework in the context of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...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
Case Name: Association for Accessible Medicines v. Bonta, Civ. No. 2:20-cv-01708-TLN-DB, 2021 WL 5853431 (E.D. Ca. Dec. 9, 2021) (Nunley, J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: N/A - Nature of Case and Issue(s) Presented:...more
Is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) constitutional? This was a question asked by Mobility Workx in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 2021-1441, 2021 WL 4762265 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mobility Workx raised...more
We previously published an article discussing patent owner’s due process challenges based on alleged pecuniary interests of the Office and Administrative Patent Judges instituting cases to meet production goals and increase...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
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit in a split decision concluded that Mobility Workx, LLC’s constitutional challenges to structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are...more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., Appeal Nos. 2020-1589, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2021) - In the only precedential patent decision issued by the Federal Circuit this week, the Court addressed again the due process and...more
From the beginning of AIA proceedings, Petitioners that have lost at institution decision phase have tried using Mandamus to circumvent the statutory lack of appeal from institution decisions. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR)...more
Originating tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Date: March 12, 2021 - Panel: Judges Newman, Moore, and Stoll, with Judge Moore writing the precedential order - Result: Appeal dismissed, and mandamus...more
MYLAN LABS. LTD. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, N.V. Before Newman, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over appeals from decisions denying...more
Security People lost an inter partes review (IPR) and appealed to the Federal Circuit. It lost that appeal and was denied certiorari at the Supreme Court. Security People never raised constitutional arguments in any of these...more
FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Interactive Games’ patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and found all but dependent claim 6 to be unpatentable as obvious. ...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
In an appeal from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Security People’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) suit challenging the constitutionality of inter partes...more
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU - Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of...more