5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
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
Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
Never Surrender? Recapturing Subject Matter in Reissue Proceedings
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Enforcing IP in a Pandemic: Considerations, Risks, Strategies
PODCAST: Trending Now An IP Podcast - Patent Office Secrecy Orders
Life Sciences Quarterly (Q2 2019): Patent Litigation - Dos and Don'ts
2017 IP Developments
The Patent Prosecution Highway | Brinks Webinar
Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2275 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the doctrine of prosecution laches. Following a bench trial on the issue held shortly...more
In Hyatt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed “for the first time the PTO’s assertion of a prosecution laches defense in a civil action brought by a patentee under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain a patent.”...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Addressing for the first time whether the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) can assert prosecution laches as a defense in a civil action brought under 35 U.S.C. §145, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that targeted advertising is still an abstract idea and that a system providing targeted advertising must utilize something more than generic features and routine...more
It can be difficult to advance prosecution of a U.S. patent application efficiently and effectively after prosecution has been closed and an Advisory Action has been mailed. Various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)...more
BAXALTA INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. Before Moore, Plager, and Wallach. Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: A district court erred by interpreting a specification’s description of an “antibody” as a definition,...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more
Amgen, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC et al - Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An examiner amendment may give rise to prosecution history...more
In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more
Sometimes appealing an Examiner’s rejection is the only practical option. If no claims of valuable scope have been allowed or indicated as allowable, and all clarifying claim amendments, supporting evidence and salient...more
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU - Before Wallach, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: If a proper reply to a final Office Action is not...more
In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that excluded prosecution that occurred after an interference was decided...more
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: A “wherein” clause can be limiting if it is material to...more
IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC - Before Prost, Reyna and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Iridescent sued AT&T and Ericsson for infringement of a patent...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Schall, and Reyna. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: The USPTO is only authorized to reduce Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for applicant...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Summary: Filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome an...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: General disclosures in the specification and statements that describe the...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more
On November 20, 2017, District Judge John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) approved a prosecution bar for “any individual who gains access” to confidential material. In addition, Judge Koeltl determined that post-issuance proceedings,...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, WALLACH, and TARANTO. Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: (1) A party may not avoid inducement based on “substantial non-infringing uses,” and (2) prosecution history...more
In a non-precedential decision issued in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V., v. Warner Chilcott Co. LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s obviousness ruling as being improperly grounded in hindsight. This decision...more
On July 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re OptumInsight denied OptumInsight’s petition for writ of mandamus on privilege waiver. The court held that the District Court for the...more