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
In the case USADATA Inc. v. DataWidget LLC, No. CV-21-00526-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 5084283 (D. Ariz. Nov. 1, 2021), the patent at issue is titled, "System and Method for Selling Customer-Specific Data Subsets on a Third-Party...more
On November 23, 2021, Chief Judge Colm Connolly of the District of Delaware denied a joint request for an early summary judgment motion in patent litigation. In Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Lenovo...more
As we previously reported, on February 11, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of Sanofi’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted...more
As we previously reported in August 2019, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion granting Sanofi’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of two of Amgen’s patents, U.S....more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
J.R. Simplot and McCain Foods have spent the last few years battling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho over issues related to – unsurprisingly – potatoes, with each party asserting a design patent related...more
On September 11, 2019, United States District J. Paul Oetken denied Defendants Tekno Products, Inc. and Max Deluxe Limited (“Max Deluxe”)’s motion for judgement on the pleadings in a patent infringement action pending in the...more
The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon in Broadsoft, Inc. v. Callwave Communication, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-711-RGA (D.Del. August 8, 2019) issued a Magistrate Judge Opinion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of...more
With the September 18, 2017 trial date fast approaching, the district court in Amgen v. Hospira last week denied Hospira’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of its proposed biosimilar of Epogen®/Procrit®...more
Claims Lacking Details Found to be Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Central Division), Polar filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings contending that...more
As we previously reported, on July 20, the Southern District of Florida granted Amgen’s motion for judgment on partial findings that the ’138 patent was not proven invalid on grounds of anticipation, lack of written...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l on June 19, 2014, there have been a surge of motions filed and granted that have invalidated patent claims for claiming patent-ineligible...more
Declaratory judgment plaintiff seeks a stay pending resolution of its motion for judgment on the pleadings. It contends that 23 contested claims from 3 patents-in-suit are not patent-eligible pursuant to section 101. With...more
Coupon Patent Easily Found Invalid under § 101 - On January 12, 2016, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in a case captioned Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. Plaintiff,...more
In February 2015, Advanced Marketing Systems (AMS) sued a number of defendants, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,445, 8,370,199, and 8,538,805. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on...more
The disputed technology relates to a data transmission processing. The patent is challenged as containing unpatentable subject matter under § 101. The court observes that § 101 jurisprudence has evolved after Alice from...more
The disputed technology relates to methods and systems for remote ordering of products. The court held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction opinion prior to issuing this opinion. Argument on patent eligibility...more
ALJ Shaw Finds No Violation In 921 Investigation – On July 2, 2015, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw issued a 320-page Final Initial Determination On Violation And Recommended Determination On Remedy in Certain Marine...more
Although the subject matter eligibility of software patents has come under increased scrutiny since the Supreme Court issued its opinion last year in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, one Massachusetts court recently declined to...more
Last week, the Nexium district court ruled on defendants’ motions seeking judgment as a matter of law. As we previously reported in several earlier posts, In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since...more
The specificity required in a motion for judgment as a matter of law/directed verdict (“JMOL”) can present challenges to counsel as they argue motions under Rule 50 or its state-law equivalents. Halo Electronics, Inc. v....more