4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Corporate Perspectives on Intellectual Property
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
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
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
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - U.S. State Data Privacy Update
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
In response to public comments submitted in response to its request thereof regarding the “article of manufacture” requirement for design patent eligibility appearing in Title 35, United States Code, Section 171, and as...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a notice regarding supplemental guidance for PTO personnel examining design patent claims containing computer-generated images. 88 Fed. Reg. 80277 (Nov. 17, 2023)....more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that “comparison prior art” used in infringement analysis in a design patent infringement must be applied to the same “article of manufacture” that is identified in the claim of the design...more
Addressing a matter of first impression concerning the scope of prior art relevant to a design patent infringement analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that “to qualify as comparison prior art,...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued four opinions regarding US design patents— two precedential opinions and two unprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions, In re SurgiSil and Campbell...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
SurgiSil filed for a design patent on the ornamental design for a lip implant. The sole figure in SurgiSil’s application is shown in the top image. The patent examiner rejected the patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 102...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
Finding that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) applied an erroneous interpretation of claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Board decision upholding an examiner’s rejection of a lip...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that the article descriptor used in a design patent limited the scope of the claimed design. Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc.,...more
With few substantive decisions addressing design patents, it’s always exciting to see new guidance from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on how these valuable IP assets are prosecuted and enforced. In two...more
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect? When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the design is ornamental, for example a pattern, on an article such...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of design patent infringement claims under an estoppel theory triggered by amendments made to meet patentability requirements in Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., No....more
CURVER LUXEMBOURG, SARL v. HOME EXPRESSIONS INC. Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Claim language specifying the article of manufacture...more
On September 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of a design patent infringement case using the title and claim to limit the claimed design to a...more
The Apple v. Samsung patent battle over specific design features of Apple’s iPhone has changed the intellectual property (IP) landscape. Now, inventors beyond the technology sector are realizing the business value of design...more
Once you have an idea for a new invention you may ask yourself whether your invention is patentable and whether you can commercialize your invention. While there is no surefire way to know if your invention is patentable...more
U.S. patent laws allow for the disgorgement of the "total profits" earned by a design patent infringer deemed to have applied the "patented design" to "any article of manufacture." The disgorged profits historically were...more
On May 24, 2018, Apple was awarded a verdict of $533 million for Samsung’s infringement of three Apple design patents. While unsuccessful ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) were filed against two of those three design patents,...more
California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took...more
On May 24, 2018, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California awarded Apple over $533 million in damages for Samsung's infringement of three Apple design patents covering portions of Apple's...more
Just when it seemed that we might have finally reached the end of the epic battle between Apple and Samsung in what was once called the “patent trial of the century,” the District Court for the Northern District of California...more
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more
Addressing the design patent battle between Apple and Samsung on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to apply the new standard or to order specific...more