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
This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more
Two proposed bills recently introduced in Congress have the potential to greatly impact the current patent litigation landscape. The bills are titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Promoting and...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
With further apologies to David Letterman - Almost two years ago we published Stupid § 101 Tricks, an article discussing some of the annoying, improper, and yet disappointingly common patterns seen in rejection and...more
In a recent inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on compelling evidence of secondary considerations to hold all challenged claims not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES V GENERAL ELECTRIC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes. Summary: Unrebutted evidence of non-enablement is sufficient to overcome an invalidity challenge based on a standalone §103 reference....more
On February 11, 2021, Amarin Pharma, Inc. (“Amarin”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision to affirm a finding that Amarin’s patents are invalid as...more
It is now over 10 years since the Bilski decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In that decision and several other decisions that followed (i.e., Mayo, Myriad, and Alice), the Supreme Court pronounced...more
In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc. (July 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) may consider, in its review of substitute claims proposed in an inter partes review...more
In the first half of 2020, several notable decisions further shaped the course of patent law, with rulings from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit impacting PTAB proceedings, as described below...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC - Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. O’Malley dissenting. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board did not exceed its statutory authority in an inter partes...more
MAYBORN GROUP, LTD., MAYBORN USA, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISISION - Before Lourie, Linn, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: An invalidity challenge, raised after the...more
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC - Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board...more
State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., Appeal No. 2018-1635 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2019) - In this appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision regarding covered...more
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC. Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...more
The decision whether to issue a Restriction Requirement during patent prosecution lies with the patent examiner, not the patent applicant. A Restriction Requirement can nevertheless trigger prosecution history estoppel that...more
In IPR2018-00272, the Board denied a motion to terminate brought by a Patent Owner who argued that a district court’s finding of indefiniteness required termination of the PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent. 9,393,208....more