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
US SYNTHETIC CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit found claims reciting magnetic properties of a claimed...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
In Lashify v. ITC, the Federal Circuit held that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, which is a precondition for obtaining International Trade Commission Section 337 relief, can be satisfied with...more
In a precedential decision issued on March 5, the Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) must consider various domestic expenditures related to foreign-made products in determining whether the...more
For decades, the ITC’s jurisdictional requirement – known as the domestic industry requirement – effectively shut out innovators from availing themselves of the powerful remedies of the forum, in the form of an exclusion...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission finding, explaining that small-market segments can be significant and substantial enough to support the Commission’s domestic...more
On Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Wuhan Healthgen Biotech. Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1389, 2025 WL 420819 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief...more
A US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, and Raymond Chen recently heard oral argument in Lashify, Inc. v. US International Trade Commission, an appeal from a...more
Addressing a determination by its chief administrative law judge (CALJ) finding a violation of § 337, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the...more
Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337 based on importation of certain TV products, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the patent holder had...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
This month’s ITC wrap up reviews one decision from April and one from March, which highlight: (1) how the ITC handles exclusion orders as marketplaces move online; and (2) the impact of Federal Circuit remands at the ITC, as...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a biotechnology company’s argument that assignment provisions in its employment agreements granted ownership rights in post-employment inventions. Bio-Rad Laboratories,...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
MAYBORN GROUP, LTD., MAYBORN USA, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISISION - Before Lourie, Linn, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: An invalidity challenge, raised after the...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
The Federal Circuit has issued another opinion arising from the patent conflict between The Chamberlain Group and Techtronic Industries—and, once again, a patent owned by Chamberlain suffered a major blow. In Techtronic...more
In a recent order issued in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Godbey denied a Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion despite the Federal Circuit’s holding that the asserted patent was invalid as indefinite. Hyosung TNS, Inc. v....more
On December 5, 2019, Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas denied the defendant Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.’s (“Diebold”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc. et al.,...more
At the end of 2018, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an opinion in One World Techs., Inc. v. United States. In that decision, Judge Choe-Groves concluded that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)...more
From time to time, international trade and patent law matters overlap. We expect to see these interactions in disputes filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). In other instances, the U.S....more