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
Harvard University has sued Samsung, alleging that the latter’s chip technology infringes two patents owned by the university. The case is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Samsung Electronics Co, U.S. District...more
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more
On August 18, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”), filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2023-01312, challenging the validity of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,464,992, assigned to Regeneron...more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
On May 10, 2023, a PTAB Panel excused the late filings of the Patent Owner and allowed over thirty exhibits and a Corrected Patent Owner Response (“CPOR”) to be submitted into the record in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v....more
The PTAB recently issued back-to-back Fintiv denials. The first denial issued on May 4, 2023. Read here about Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. California Institute of Tech., No. IPR2023-00130, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 4,...more
In March, Samsung agreed to pay UK Nanotechnology Company Nanoco USD 150 million in a patent infringement dispute over patents used in QLED televisions that featured legal team from Wei Chixue Law Firm of Linda Liu Group - a...more
On March 10, 2023, the PTAB denied institution of IPR2022-1524, filed by Apotex Inc. regarding Regeneron’s Patent No. 11,253,572. As we previously reported, Apotex filed an IPR petition against the ’572 patent in...more
The USPTO published Revision 07.2022 of the Ninth Edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). A change summary is available here....more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments in the Western District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas for the month of February 2023....more
Celltrion and Samsung recently filed IPR petitions challenging claims of Regeneron patents directed to treating angiogenic eye disorders with aflibercept. Specifically, Celltrion and Samsung have each filed petitions...more
This post reviews three recent Texas district court opinions regarding venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq....more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments related to patent litigation in federal district courts of Texas for the month of October 2021....more
Under the Board’s rules, a patent owner gets to have the last word in a PTAB proceeding by filing a sur-reply to the petitioner’s reply. Sur-replies may only respond to arguments raised in the reply, and the “sur-reply … may...more
KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Newman, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The forum selection clause in the parties'...more
IN RE: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. [OPINION] (2021-139, 2021-140, 6/30/2021) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna) - Dyk, J. Granting the writs of...more
IN RE: SAMSUNG ELECS., CO., LTD. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: Manipulation of venue through...more
In only its third precedential patent case of 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed two discrete issues. It established further precedent concerning whether references on web pages and as part of meetings of interested artisans...more
In Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No 19-civ-4297 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 19, 2021), the parties’ forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreement did not prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) from...more
In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the '740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...more
Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image...more
Samsung successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several of Papst’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437. Prior to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of the ’437 patent...more