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
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 7,865,538; and 8,255,439, which claim methods for storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams on a computer system. In...more
In the first half of 2022, Rx IP Update reported on a number of developments in Canadian life sciences IP and regulatory law. The Rx IP Update team at Smart & Biggar has collected the top stories from January to July and...more
In USC IP Partnership, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 2021 WL 6690275, U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101...more
Assignment and Recordation of Patent Ownership Rights - A patent has the attributes of intangible personal property: it can be sold or mortgaged; it may be bequeathed by a will; and it may pass to the heirs of a deceased...more
Nature of Patents and Patent Rights - When a patent is issued under the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, it is signed by the Director of the USPTO or an Office official. The patent contains a grant...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision is a mixed bag of good and bad news for both patent owners and inter partes review petitioners. On the plus side for patent owners (but not for petitioners),...more
Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 19-1688 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021) - The Federal Circuit has further clarified the scope of what types of PTAB decisions are appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). In Uniloc 2017 v....more
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the issue of estoppel (or...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR)...more
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1688, -1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, Uniloc appealed from two consolidated IPR decisions finding multiple claims unpatentable as obvious....more
UNILOC 2017 LLC v. FACEBOOK INC. Before Lourie, Wallach, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude Federal Circuit review of the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept....more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On September 4, 2020, the Federal Circuit modified and reissued its March 18, 2020 Facebook v. Windy City opinion to address the Supreme Court’s intervening April 20, 2020 Thryv v. Click-to-Call opinion...more
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review challenges to the Board's joinder...more
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the “clear and unambiguous text of” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize “same-party joinder” and...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice of permitting petitioners to join themselves as parties to existing reviews and adding...more
It's often said that hard cases make bad law. And that is what had happened here: faced with an unreasonable number of potentially asserted claims in litigation, and a Plaintiff not required to identify which of those...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in an opinion filed March 18, 2020, that petitioners to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not join themselves as a party to their earlier filed inter partes...more
B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. FACEBOOK, INC. Before Lourie, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Summary: A decision on the merits is not a prerequisite...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
The recent PTAB order in IPR2017-01427 is a cautionary tale for petitioners considering multiple IPRs against a single patent. On May 11, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed the ’1427 IPR petition challenging claims 1-8 of U.S....more
Bruce Zak, an individual, sued Facebook, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on two of his software patents -- United States Patent Nos. 8,713,134 and 9,141,720. ...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - District Court Awards Attorney Fees Under its Inherent Powers Rather than 35 U.S.C. § 285 - On October 10, 2013, plaintiff MyMedicalRecords, Inc. (MMR) sued defendants claiming...more