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
Where the Operative Facts Occurred - In assessing this primary factor, courts have looked to the location of defendant’s principal place of business, where the ANDA application was prepared, and where the ANDA product was...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services...more
Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C....more
The DTSA After One Year: Has the Federal Trade Secrets Law Met Expectations? - On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation –...more
This timely webinar will provide insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which has reshaped procedural...more
Last week, Judge Nelson of the District of Minnesota decided that further briefing on venue in The Valspar Corp. et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc. was appropriate given the recent TC Heartland decision by the Supreme Court. This...more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved where a domestic corporation "resides" for purposes of the patent venue statute. The Court narrowed the meaning of "resides" under 28 U.S.C....more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, 581 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision and clarified the proper scope of venue pursuant to the patent venue statute, 28...more
In a highly anticipated opinion significantly narrowing the first prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC unanimously held that a domestic...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland will undoubtedly have a substantial impact on patent venue selection and will likely lead to a marked decrease in cases brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Under the Supreme...more
The action was based on alleged infringement of one network routing technology patent owned by Internap and potential infringement of a second patent. Both plaintiff and defendant are Delaware corporations with offices in...more
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in California at the time the complaint was filed. Its current address is in New York. Defendant is an Ohio LLC with its principal place of business in...more