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
Considering numerous claim construction, infringement and damages issues related to patents allegedly covering Apple’s iPhones 5 and 6 series technology, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined...more
On January 3, 2019, following a jury’s award of $145 million in damages to Wi-LAN, the Southern District of California granted Apple’s motion for a conditional order of remittitur to a $10 million damages award. In granting...more
On May 24, 2018, we received the third (trial) installment in the seven year legal battle between Apple and Samsung over the design of smart phones and related devices. At issue on this go-round was a retrial solely directed...more
The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more
Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more
In its first design patent case in over a century, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, reversed a damages award Apple Inc. (“Apple”) had won over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) in their protracted...more
A unanimous US Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include either the end product sold to the consumer or...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a $400 million damages award against Samsung for infringing Apple's smartphone design patents. In a decision that upsets a long-standing rule for calculating damages for design...more
On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, holding that in the case of a multicomponent product, the “article of manufacture” that is the basis for an award...more
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) - In the closely-watched Samsung v. Apple case, the Supreme Court today issued a landmark ruling that changed the long-standing rule for calculating damages for...more
Federal Circuit Revives Possibility of Permanent Injunction in Apple-Samsung Patent Dispute - In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 2014-1802, the Federal Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the...more
On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more
At the recent Apple iPhone unveiling event, we learned that you can Peek at it with a light press on your iPhone screen and Pop into it by pressing a little deeper. And just like that, Apple unleashed a new namespace of...more
In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sharon Prost, the Federal Circuit held that while design patents covering product configurations – that is, “a product feature or a combination or arrangement of features” – can protect...more
It has long been possible to use both trade dress and design patent rights to protect three-dimensional designs that function as trademarks. One strategy has been to rely on design patent protection while a three-dimensional...more
Decision Date: May 18, 2015 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D593,087; D604,305; D618,677 - Holding: Judgment of trade dress dilution REVERSED; judgment of patent validity and...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - Judge in the Northern District of California Excludes Damages Expert Opinion that Used the Entire Handset as the Royalty Base - Judge Grewal of the Northern District of California granted...more
For the first time in 26 years, the White House exercised its veto authority over an International Trade Commission ("ITC") Exclusion Order. On June 4, 2013, the ITC determined in Investigation No. 337-TA-794 that Apple had...more
On August 3, 2013, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, acting under the authority of President Obama, sent a letter noting his disapproval of the International Trade Commission’s determination to issue an exclusion...more