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
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more
In Matco Tools Corporation v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 118 (Matco Tools), the Federal Court found that a decision by the Commissioner of Patents to refuse to reinstate a patent application following the failure to...more
On January 24, in Steuben Foods, Inc v. Shibuya Hoppman Corporation, the Federal Circuit found that Steuben had made a compelling argument that the common law Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents (RDOE) did not survive the 1952...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp., Appeal No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit addressed an “anachronistic exception, long mentioned but...more
Eli Lilly v Teva, Pharmascience, Riva, Apotex, Mylan (tadalafil, CIALIS) – Following a summary trial, Lilly’s infringement actions were dismissed: composition claims directed to “a physiologically acceptable salt” of...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
On 2 March, the UK Supreme Court heard the arguments in Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, the latest in a growing line of international jurisprudence grappling with issues raised by the use of...more
Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, Appeal No. 2019-1483 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit provided what appears to be its first precedential opinion construing Section 317 of the...more
On March 8, 2021, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Apotex’s claims against Eli Lilly (Lilly) under the Statute of Monopolies, Trademarks Act, and common law conspiracy relating to Canadian Patent No. 2,041,113...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently confirmed in Thaler v. Vidalthat artificial intelligence (AI) agents cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent because the plain text of the Patent Act requires...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that an artificial intelligence (AI) software system cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application because the Patent Act requires an “inventor” to be a natural...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Thaler v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2021-2347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022) - In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit answered a question that had long occupied the musings...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues...more
Functional claims took another hit at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The patent at issue broadly claimed a three-part chimeric antigen receptor including all scFvs that bind to any target. The Court found written...more
On July 28, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) dismissed Seedling’s appeal from the Federal Court decision of Justice Grammond (2020 FC 1, previously reported), which concluded that certain claims of Seedlings' LifeCard...more
In the first appellate decision relating to Certificates of Supplementary Protection (CSPs), the Federal Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal of the Minister of Health (the Minister), setting aside the lower court judgment....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), holding that the statutory language authorizing so-called “C-delay” patent...more
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its second and third decisions in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings and Neapco Drivelines, the case we’ve previously discussed in which the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR International v. Teleflex altered the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in determining whether a claimed invention passes muster under the Patent Act. The KSR Court...more
This article was last updated on June 26, 2020. In view of COVID-19, we have compiled a list of important updates as it relates to the pandemic and its impact on Life Sciences. We will continue to update this page as new...more
The Patent Act allows anyone to try to initiate an inter partes review (IPR), which is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging one or more claims of a patent. Any such challenge may be based...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinion: Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801: Under the Patent Act, an adverse decision by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) can be appealed...more
Federal Court of Appeal requires PMPRB to re-determine whether patent ‘pertains to’ Galderma’s DIFFERIN - On June 28, 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal granted the appeal of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB...more
Following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the impact of an intervening invalidation of four of six patent claims in issue by the Patent Trial and...more