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
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more
In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that patentees in district court are not collaterally estopped from asserting claims that were not immaterially different...more
In response to a lawsuit for patent infringement, often a defendant will file an inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of the asserted claims. How can a patentee avoid this scenario?...more
On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent application, and printed...more
Amongst the many decisions an attorney makes throughout litigation, there is one choice that can shape the outcome of a case way before filing a motion, setting discovery and trial strategy, or even calling a witness: venue,...more
The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination...more
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
On July 26, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld and expounded on the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). The CAFC confirmed that the Patent...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. BACKERTOP LICENSING LLC [OPINION] (23-2367, 23-2368, 24-1016, 24-1017 Prost, Hughes, and Stoll) - Hughes, J. The Court affirmed the District Court’s orders (1)...more
Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...more
We previously reported on the litigation brought by ModernaTX, Inc. and Moderna US, Inc. (collectively, “Moderna”) against BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech US Inc. (collectively, “BioNTech”), and Pfizer Inc....more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...more
Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of...more
Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
The Western District of Texas recently denied a defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review based in part on the defendant’s status as a non-party in the IPR proceedings. In doing so, the district court focused on...more
I. Introduction - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was years in the making. From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 20052 until the final House and Senate debates in...more