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
It has been a while since the Federal Circuit weighed in on the patent eligibility of so-called “natural product” claims. While the finding of non-eligibility in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc. is not surprising, it...more
Patent law (and, consequently, patent lawyers) can be viewed as having at least a slightly tighter tether on concrete, factual reality than other areas of the law, at least to the extent that making patent-related legal...more
The latest Federal Circuit decision on subject matter eligibility in the life sciences came down (by a divided court) in favor of eligibility, in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. The claims at issue fell into the...more
There is a belief in some quarters that the most significant barrier to patent subject matter eligibility reform is an implacable opposition by companies in the high tech sector because those companies are convinced that the...more
Will there be patent eligibility reform following the Senate Committee hearings? Major points of contention during the hearings were (1) the patentability of human genes, (2) whether proposed changes to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), there has been considerable uncertainty regarding what constitutes patentable subject matter. In a...more
We wrote earlier about the Supreme Court’s renewed interest in patent eligibility and seemingly unintended confusion between the patent eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the remaining patentability requirements...more
The U.S. patent system has long struggled to strike a balance that both encourages patent rights and prevents patent abuse. Finding that balance requires giving patent owners the right amount of patent enforcement power,...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
Clearly the High Court has given an answer to a question, but was that question the one we anticipated? That in itself is an open question!...more
Like the United States Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia has determined that Myriad’s patents directed to purified and isolated DNA molecules encoding the BRCA genes are unpatentable. Indeed, the Australian Court...more
The Australian High Court yesterday unanimously overturned six lower court judges and dismissed some very careful reasoning to not only follow the U.S. Supreme Court in invalidating claims to the BRCA1 and 2 gene sequences,...more
Just over one year after the Full Federal Court of Australia unanimously upheld an earlier Federal Court decision that naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules are patentable in Australia, the High Court of Australia has...more
Colleagues in Australia have been spreading the bad news: The High Court of Australia followed the lead (?) of the U.S. Supreme Court and determined that Myriad cannot patent the isolated BRCA1 gene in Australia. Thanks to...more
D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad, deciding once and for all that isolated nucleic acids do not define patent-eligible...more
D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia has today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, unanimously striking down the validity of the first three claims...more
In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more
In Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., (August 13, 2015 Fed. Cir.) an en banc Federal Circuit unanimously held that direct infringement under Section 271(a) can occur...more
Sequenom, Inc. has filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit decision that held its diagnostic method claims invalid under 35 USC § 101. (You can read my synopsis of that decision here). Stakeholders in...more
The High Court of Australia today heard the long anticipated appeal from the unanimous decision of a 5-judge bench of the Full Federal Court to allow Myriad's claims to isolated nucleic acids. The question before the...more
On Friday, June 12, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., affirming the district court's finding that Sequenom’s claims are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court's...more
In 2009, the first edition of Dr. David Koepsell's book "Who Owns You: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes" was published. With the second edition of his text about to be published, Dr. Koepsell allowed Patent Docs...more
The issue of patent eligibility has been a hotly litigated issue in the field of intellectual property law, and both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have issued numerous decisions in recent years--particularly in...more
Strong intellectual property increases the value of a company. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets are some avenues to protect intellectual property, but understanding when they’re available and understanding...more
As discussed at the end of January, Myriad has given up its Quixotic quest to validate its BRCA gene testing franchise and has abandoned its several lawsuits (many of which were consolidated before the District of Utah under...more