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
Your Package Could Not Be Delivered – District of Delaware Strikes Electronic Storage Room Claims as Patent Ineligible - Judge Choe-Groves of the United States Court of International Trade granted Defendant’s Motion to...more
Aviation Capital Partners v. SH Advisors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ineligibility of claims directed to determining the taxability status of aircraft based on flight data. The panel upheld...more
On April 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom (E.D.N.Y.) declined to sanction a pro se plaintiff for failing to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation of whether his patent was infringed. Plaintiff initially filed a...more
In our prior article, we discussed instances in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the district courts made different findings with regard to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A recent...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
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
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
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
The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same...more
On April 1, 2025, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Defendants Marut Enterprises LLC and Brett Marut’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss and entered final judgment against Foto Electric Supply...more
The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgement action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin. Though suit...more
On March 24, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted-in-part Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) motion for sanctions, attorney’s fees, and costs against Plaintiff EscapeX IP, LLC (“EscapeX”) and its...more
Recently, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Andrew Walker, Jr.’s (“Walker”) Second Amended Complaint be granted for lack of...more
On March 11, 2025, District Judge Margaret M. Garnett dismissed SafeCast Limited’s (“SafeCast”) patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) because SafeCast failed to secure counsel. SafeCast Ltd....more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
Amarin sells the drug icosapent ethyl under the brand name Vascepa. Vascepa is approved by the FDA for two indications: (i) to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition characterized by blood triglyceride levels greater...more
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
On February 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., where the Court held that a “a prior final written decision of the [PTAB] of unpatentability on separate...more
Following the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision in 2017, a patent owner may only sue an alleged infringer in either: (1) a judicial district of the state where the defendant is incorporated; or (2) a judicial district...more
Three subjects stood out in patent litigation in Texas in December 2024: (1) knowledge of related patents, general patent portfolio, or other asserted patents do not establish the knowledge requirement for pre-suit indirect...more
The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the...more
Many lower courts have interpreted the Federal Circuit’s Nalco decision to hold that claim construction is inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage. But the Federal Circuit’s recent UTTO decision clarified that claim...more
On January 3, 2025, District Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Defendant Trustpilot, Inc.’s (“Trustpilot”) Motion to Dismiss Linfo IP, LLC’s (“Linfo”) complaint alleging that Trustpilot directly and indirectly infringed U.S....more
In biomodal Ltd. v. New England BioLabs, Inc., No. 24-cv-11697-RGS, Dkt. No. 78 (D. Mass. Nov. 2024), Defendant New England BioLabs, Inc. (“NEB”) filed a motion to dismiss the claims of infringement of five patents as...more
On October 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing claim construction at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. In UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18,...more