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
On October 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Nexstep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, affirming the District Court for the District of Delaware’s judgment of...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113, 10/24/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the...more
NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Nos. 2022-1815, -2005, -2113 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Oct. 24, 2024). Opinion by Chen, joined by Taranto. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Reyna....more
The International Trade Commission found a violation of Section 337 by Comcast X1 set-top boxes, and Comcast appealed two issues of statutory interpretation underlying the Commission’s finding. First, Comcast argued that its...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision that a respondent qualified as an importer under § 337 despite not being the actual importer of record, based on the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - GS CleanTech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2231, 2017-1838, 2017-1832 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2020) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s...more
On March 2, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued Comcast v. ITC and held that the International Trade Commission (ITC) can block the importation of products that do not infringe a U.S. patent at the time of importation. The case...more
On April 5, 2018, Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Rovi Guides Inc.’s (“Rovi”) motion to lift a stay related to U.S. Patent No. 8,122,034 (“the ’034 patent”), only one of five patents at issue in a case that was...more
In another example of cloud-based technologies and services falling victim to increased patent litigation surrounding the cloud space, Rovi Guides, Inc. (a TiVo subsidiary) filed another patent campaign against its...more
Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337. Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement. In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues...more
Two-Way Media brought an action against Comcast in the District of Delaware, claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,187, 5,983,005, 6,434,622, and 7,266,686. The District Court dismissed the case on the pleadings,...more
On October 27, 2016, District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Comcast Corp.'s ("Comcast") motion to stay the case pending resolution of inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings instituted by the Patent Trial...more
On August 10, 2017, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) construed 29 claim terms in a dispute between Defendant Comcast Corporation, et al. (“Comcast”) and Plaintiff Rovi Guides, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“Rovi”). The...more
On June 19, 2017, Northern District of California Judge William Alsup granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC’s (“Comcast”) motion to strike defendants OpenTV, Inc. and Nagravision SA’s...more
On May 15, 2017, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied the motion of Comcast Corporation, et al. (“Comcast”) for reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order dated December 14, 2016. The Court had earlier denied...more
On April 3, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 determining not to review Judge Lord’s finding of no...more
Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12-1013 - RGA, August 7, 2015 - Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL is granted and in the alternative their motion for a new trial is...more
The disputed technology relates to using internet technology to route calls through a network. A 6-day jury trial took place in October 2014 resulting in a jury verdict for plaintiff. The court finds there was sufficient...more
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) initiated a declaratory judgment action relating to the following three patents owned by Eclipse IP LLC (“Eclipse”)...more