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
In July 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) clarified its procedural rules surrounding evidence preservation and confidentiality. It confirmed that the deadline for bringing an action on the merits only starts to run after...more
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for...more
In CQV Co. Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) the interaction of indemnification agreements with Article III standing for appeals of post-grant review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more
On February 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences’s (“Parse”) motions for summary judgment that: (i) Parse had never actually conducted any direct or...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed that parties seeking correction of...more
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
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., No. 23-1790 (Fed. Cir. 2025) - On January 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit considered the “long mentioned but rarely applied” reverse doctrine of equivalents (“RDOE”) defense. ...more
Nearly two years in, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to reshape the patent litigation landscape in Europe by providing swift, cross-border resolutions and an innovative approach to patent enforcement and revocation....more
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. Nos. 18-734, 19-16484, 2024 WL 5135666 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2024) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit:...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus...more
On January 13, in BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed issues related to inventorship and state law conversion claims that stemmed from exchanges between two individuals, Mr. Storms and Mr. McNamara, at...more
In a recently published opinion, Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) found that it was appropriate to compare the accused system to a plaintiff’s commercial system embodying the asserted patent claims, rather than the patent...more
When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...more
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 7,865,538; and 8,255,439, which claim methods for storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams on a computer system. In...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and...more
The PTAB recently excluded a portion of Duration Media LLC’s (Petitioner) reply declaration for containing improper new evidence in an inter partes review petition filed against Rich Media Club LLC (Patent Owner) challenging...more
The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent...more
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
The District of Delaware granted-in-part Shopify’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively a new trial, citing gaps in the evidentiary record resulting in an insufficient basis for the jury verdict of...more
In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 22-1906 (Fed. Cir. 2023), VLSI sued Intel for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,523,373 (the “’373 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (the “’759 patent”). After a jury...more
In almost every claim construction, the courts make their claim construction ruling largely based on the intrinsic evidence – the claims, specification and prosecution history. However, the Federal Circuit (CAFC) bucked this...more