Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
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
Key Takeaways: - The Director, in consultation with at least three APJs, will now decide the discretionary denial question, rather than having the merits panel decide the issue. - Discretionary denial will have separate...more
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal Nos. 2020-1475, -1605 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021)- In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from the International Trade...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
Appellants in New Vision Gaming & Development v. SC Gaming, Inc. f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. and Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC challenge the constitutionality of the administrative patent judge (APJ) incentive...more
Following on Judge Newman’s dissent in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., parties are seeking to preserve their rights by challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that a party’s failure to raise...more
In Game and Tech Co. (“GAT”) v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd, the Federal Circuit shed some light on what qualifies as “service” for purposes of triggering the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Court also clarified the role that the...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
In Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corporation, Fed. Cir., No. 18-01559, the Federal Circuit extended the inability to stand behind 11th Amendment Sovereign Immunity to patents owned by individual states, such that they...more
As strategies for managing multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) of the same or related patents evolve, so does the complexity of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel prevents a party from having to re-litigate issues that...more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Akron, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of various patents owned by Allergan, Inc., which the Board instituted. One week before the scheduled IPR...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more
On 26 October 2018, the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) issued a Decision setting out the establishment of a new IP Court of Appeals at the national level within the Supreme People’s Court...more
Federal Circuit Summary - En Banc (excl. Chen), Opinion for the court filed by Stoll, joined by Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District...more
Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018). The Court held, by a 7-4 vote (Judge Chen, the former PTO Solicitor, was recused), that if the...more
On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent applicant’s obligation to pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) “expenses” for district court proceedings to review patent application rejections does not...more
On July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity is not available as a defense in IPR. Allergan Pharmaceuticals owned patents that it had asserted in litigation against various generic...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided whether tribal sovereign immunity required termination of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). At the PTAB, Mylan...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Tribal sovereign immunity does not shield Indian Tribe owned patents from IPR. ...more
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. In so holding, the...more
The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III standing in Personal Audio,...more