5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
Innovating with AI: Ensuring You Own Your Inventions
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
Using Innovative Technology to Advance Trial Strategies | Episode 70
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to admit expert testimony and remanded the case to a different judge, noting that “from the moment this case fell in his lap, the trial...more
STATIC MEDIA LLC v. LEADER ACCESSORIES LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: It was an abuse of discretion to hold a party in contempt for an alleged protective...more
This case was the second opinion in a patent dispute saga between two poultry processing competitors over patented poultry chilling technology. See John Bean Tech. Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., 887 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir....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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) based on a...more
Trial courts tend to get more than the benefit of the doubt when their decisions are viewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard, and juries similarly are affirmed unless there isn't substantial evidence supporting their...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an accused infringer’s mandamus petition to transfer a case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, concluding that the district court...more
Since Judge Alan D. Albright took the bench in the Western District of Texas in September 2018, the number of patent litigation cases in that district has risen exponentially....more
When the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s award of attorney fees in Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv n’ Care, Ltd. last month, we were reminded that, while a district court has wide latitude to...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
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more
Addressing a jury verdict of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing trial testimony regarding obviousness from a lay witness, and remanded...more
Honeywell owns U.S. Patent 9,157,017, which claims automotive air-conditioning systems. The application to the ’017 patent had originally described and recited claims for flouroalkane compounds for use in refrigeration...more
Expert witness testimony is a frequent (almost ubiquitous) feature of patent litigation, if only because questions of the state of the art or the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art are almost always at...more
HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC - Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Honeywell Int’l v. Arkema, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir., October 1, 2019) - Arkema filed two petitions for post-grant review of a Honeywell patent pertaining to fluoroalkene compounds used in refrigerator...more
In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that three patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar but remanded two other patent claims for trial, explaining that the district court...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Asserting the district court’s claim construction prevented consideration of additional prior art,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a denial of attorneys’ fees under 35 USC § 285 and cautioned future litigants to “tread carefully” in criticizing district courts. Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Wallach, Linn and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: In determining whether to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927,...more
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes...more