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
At ACI’s 23rd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents, you can expect informational overviews and thorough discussion of every facet of the industry. In a time of major legislative, regulatory, and judicial change, you can't...more
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a five-year patent term extension (“PTE”) for Merck’s sugammadex patent, holding that the district court had correctly calculated PTE based on the...more
In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, the Federal Circuit expanded the preclusive effect of non-infringement rulings. It ruled that prior judgments of non-infringement can prevent follow-on lawsuits involving...more
In August 2023, the Federal Circuit in In re Cellect held that in evaluating unpatentability for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) of a patent that has received patent term adjustment (PTA), the relevant date is the...more
Filing a continuation application from a parent patent is an implicit admission that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) applies to the resulting continuation patent. A Terminal Disclaimer in the continuation patent over...more
Hosted by American Conference Institute, the 22nd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will provide practical insights on how to maximize your patent term...more
Gain a comprehensive understanding of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA essentials, a critical competency for legal and business professionals in the biopharmaceutical arena. Attend ACI’s Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Proficiency Series...more
Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
Patent practitioners of all stripes should take heed of the recent decision by the U.S. Federal Circuit in In re Cellect. The decision has direct implications for strategies in patent portfolio management, patent prosecution,...more
On June 9, 2023, the Federal Circuit—presided over by Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna—held oral arguments in In re Cellect, LLC. The case that many clients, especially the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, have been...more
On March 22, 2021, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey found a patent’s claims not invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) in view of a reference patent from the same patent...more
Mayo Foundation v. Iancu reads more like an arithmetic problem than a Federal Circuit decision. The reason is the case involves the Patent Term Adjustment Act (PTA) (see 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)). ...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH v. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE - Before: Newman, Lourie, and Dyk - ...more
Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit declined to further extend the patent term of an antibody patent held by the Mayo Foundation. In Mayo Foundation v. Iancu, the court held that the time spent on a request for continued...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) erred in calculating a patent term adjustment (PTA) for a patent covering an oral osmotic form of an antihypertensive drug,...more
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc. (No. 2017-2463, 1/24/19) (Prost, Moore, Taranto) - Taranto, J. Affirming judgement of no invalidating public use of patents related to methods for correcting spinal column anomalies. Also...more
In Novartis v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO that “time spent in a continued examination” does not count towards the three years the USPTO is allotted to examine a patent before if it must...more
In Singhal v. Lee, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a complaint that challenged the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) awarded to two patents, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon...more
In Mohsenzadeh v. Lee (decided March 19, 2014), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute does not provide PTA to a divisional application when the USPTO...more
On January 15, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued in Novartis v. Lee its anticipated opinion regarding the proper interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154, the statute that determines how patent term adjustment (PTA) is calculated....more
In Abraxis Bioscience, LLC v. Kappos, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00730., (D.D.C. Jan. 08, 2014), Judge Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia upheld the USPTO’s interpretation of the Patent Term...more