Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
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
On March 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a closely watched case on the issue of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Though not the main point of contention, the doctrine of...more
On August 26, 2020, the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down its unanimous combined decision in the cases of Unwired Planet v. Huawei and Huawei v. Conversant. Both cases involved questions of: 1. Whether the...more
Commil, USA, LLC sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for patent infringement and inducing patent infringement with regard to Commil’s patented method of implementing short-range wireless networks. Today, in Commil, USA, LLC v. Cisco...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, May 26 that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of inducing infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-1986 (May 26, 2015). The Supreme...more
Regular readers know I am a fan of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. The show has done multiple segments relevant to our topics of discussion. They recently did a segment on patent reform....more
Historically, the patent system has provided broad protections to software innovations. In the past, software patent holders could prevent competitor infringement without much need for a comprehensive disclosure of the...more
The US Supreme Court issued two anticipated decisions on June 2, 2014, relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standards for indefiniteness and induced infringement. In the first, Nautilus, Inc....more
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12-786, Slip Op. (June 2, 2014) - The United States Supreme Court has revived “divided infringement” as a defense to claims for inducement of patent...more
The America Invents Act (AIA) changes the traditional calculus in determining whether to seek patenting an invention or to maintain it as a trade secret. This shift in intellectual property protection is the result of two...more
In a unanimous and unequivocal opinion, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that liability for inducement of patent infringement requires that the induced entity itself perform every element of a claim, and thus directly...more
On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., reversing the en banc Federal Circuit decision and holding that there can be no liability for induced...more
In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more
A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more
The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more
Declaratory judgment plaintiffs and counterclaimants in patent cases have long been accustomed to filing boilerplate claims that either do not identify an accused technology, or that do so in a cursory manner. Noninfringement...more
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The sole issue to be determined is whether the burden of proof shifts in a declaratory judgment action...more
"In the modern economy, licensing of intellectual property rights is a widespread and essential activity." Those are the opening lines from the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association...more
On October 1, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the “exceptional” case standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in two separate patent-infringement cases. Both cases relate to patentees who are...more
Patents/Preliminary Injunction: Preliminary Injunction Ordered Based on Appellate Claim Construction Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. - Addressing a preliminary injunction filed by a defendant in a...more
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Utah Foundation, Inc., Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), Breast Cancer Action, and AARP submitted an amici curiae brief...more
While the facts may show that damages would be reparable, this assumption is not sufficient [for purposes of a preliminary injunction analysis]....more
A day after Myriad Genetics sued Ambry Genetics for patent infringement, the company filed suit in the District of Utah, Central Divisions against Gene by Gene Ltd. (Case No. 2:13-cv-00643-EJF; complaint). The complaint is...more
Patents / Patent Eligible Subject Matter - Supreme Court to Myriad: Isolated DNA Sequences Are Not Patent-Eligible Subject Matter -- AMP et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: In a 9–0 decision the Supreme...more
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant certiorari in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, a case involving a split in authority that has arisen among Federal Circuit judges regarding the scope of the...more
In This Issue: • Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction • Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds • Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards • Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry - Excerpt...more