What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Wolf Greenfield’s New Shareholders
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
Tonia Sayour in the Spotlight
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
Takeaways: - Claim construction for determining whether reissue claims are improperly broadened is based on fundamental claim construction cannons and not applicant intentions. - Patent Owners should check patented claims...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the “on-sale bar” invalidates a patent if an inventor has sold or made the invention publicly available more than one year before filing the patent application. Recently, the United States Court of...more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to a graphical user interface that seeks to enhance how search results are displayed to a user. The court agreed that the claims are...more
On December 20, 2023, the UK Supreme Court ("Court") dismissed Dr. Stephen Thaler's appeal, unanimously affirming the decision of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks ("Comptroller") that a machine which...more
Many of us have said, “Bacon makes everything better.” Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it...more
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
Inventorship issues can have serious implications in patent litigation, leading to invalidation or unenforceability of the patent at issue, as seen in several notable 2022 cases. In the coming year, patent owners should take...more
In three previous blog posts, we have discussed recent inventorship issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and its implications for life sciences innovations – focusing specifically on scientist Stephen Thaler’s...more
There is a split developing in the world over whether artificial intelligence software (AI) can be listed as an inventor on a patent application. A recent U.S. district court decision illustrates the consistent position...more
Inventors, executives, investors and others are often tripped up when contemplating patents and the rights they do and do not afford. On the latest episode of Trending Now - An IP Podcast, Tom Bergert and Drew Shores discuss...more
Can an employee’s unpatentable “idea”, conceived under a duty to assign intellectual property, give rise to co-ownership in an invention conceived after employment terminates? That was the question on appeal in Bio-Rad...more
On August 2, 2021, in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-1715, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), a Federal Circuit panel decision, with a dissent, upheld the district court’s denial of Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to...more
Striking a blow to patent applicants seeking to assert inventorship by artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled on September 3, 2021 that an AI machine cannot...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a biotechnology company’s argument that assignment provisions in its employment agreements granted ownership rights in post-employment inventions. Bio-Rad Laboratories,...more
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the rather arcane issue of assignor estoppel. Stop - I can figuratively feel your eyes rolling after reading the phase...more
The Court’s decision rested on whether the patents provided outstanding benefit to the employer’s undertaking. On 23 October, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its highly anticipated ruling in Shanks v Unilever [2019]...more
On this week’s episode, George Summerfield and Kelly Plummer explore five key questions academic medical centers often face with respect to patent ownership and enforcement. Their discussion covers a number of issues,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal of a complaint for failing to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), finding error in the district court’s use of judicial notice to do fact-finding outside the...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit held that an ex-employee (of Cisco) who founded a competitor (Arista) can challenge their own assigned patent, finding that, after assignment, they are not the patent owner. The Court held that...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 - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Section 103 does not, by its terms, define the “art to which [the] subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,” but longstanding precedent couches this question of fact in terms of “whether the art is analogous or not.”...more