Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
Cross-Border Patent Assignment--How Can Foreigners Obtain Patent Assignments from Chinese Patentees?
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Five Popular Misconceptions about Patents
Pepper Hamilton Higher Education "In Brief" Webinar Series: Intellectual Property Basics - What Every Higher Education Administrator Needs To Know
6 Key Takeaways | Protect Your Business's Foundation and Future with a Strong Internal Patent System
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
IP|Trend: Starting Up Your Protection of Intellectual Property
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging...more
In Celanese Int’l Corp. v. ITC, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the on-sale bar such that the sale of a product made using a secret process would no longer invalidate later-sought...more
On July 17, 2024, the U.S. Patent Office issued additional guidance regarding patentability and inventorship concerns relating to Artificial Intelligence. This guidance expands upon prior guidelines, as discussed in a...more
On July 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released updated guidance on patent subject matter eligibility, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI). This update, effective from July 17, 2024, is...more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
The relentless march of technological progress presents a unique challenge for the intellectual property (IP) landscape. Earlier this year, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Request for Comments...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment that patent claims directed to identifying advertisements based on search results are patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
AI technologies bring several new business opportunities, but they also bring a host of new legal questions, including in intellectual property law. A very important question at the intersection of AI and IP is: how do we...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
The recent resurgence in ex parte reexamination demonstrates the importance of this post-grant review vehicle. It has become particularly important for patent challengers who may be estopped from requesting inter partes...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to a graphical user interface that seeks to enhance how search results are displayed to a user. The court agreed that the claims are...more
Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more
The Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed a patent infringement claim, holding that the asserted claim directed to natural speech processing is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because it fails the Alice...more
What You Need to Know The USPTO has reiterated its position that Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. does not apply to patents and patent applications that fall under the America Invents Act (AIA) by designating...more
Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C....more
Judge Williams in the District of Delaware recently granted a motion to dismiss the complaint because the patents-in-suit claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to using and training...more
In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...more
In a precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a final written decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found that Apple had failed to meet its burden of showing...more
Two bills recently introduced in Congress could significantly affect the current patent litigation landscape. The bipartisan bills are titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Promoting and Respecting...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more
This weekend The New York Times published an editorial opinion entitled "Save America's Patent System." It bemoans the purported prevalence of "bad patents" -- including "uninspiring tweaks" to existing products -- that...more
In cxLoyalty Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021), Patent No. 7,134,087 explained that loyalty programs often issue points to customers as a reward for certain activities and allow the customers...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit looked at a patent directed to a data privacy system that described users operating mobile device apps to "socialize, bank, shop, and navigate." As users operate such apps,...more
On July 31, 2020, in American Axle v. Neapco, the Federal Circuit split 6-6 on the question of whether to grant en banc review of a panel decision on patent eligibility seen by many as an unwarranted extension of the...more