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
Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commn’s Co. et al Before Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A patentee’s extensive citations to evidence failed to avoid summary judgment of...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict of $140 million in a patent infringement case. The damages were based on a reasonable royalty. The case is Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Time Warner...more
On November 30, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding Sprint Communications Company, LP (“Sprint”) damages in the amount of $139,800,000.00 USD against Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., for infringing five...more
Patentee’s Unnecessarily Broad Prosecution Disclaimer Affirmed by Federal Circuit - In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311, the Federal...more
Addressing evidentiary issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that a settlement agreement related to the patent at issue is admissible as proof of a reasonable royalty. Prism...more
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communication Co., Case No. 16-1013 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 23, 2016) (Prost, CJ) (Newman, J, dissenting). Sprint sued Cox for patent infringement, asserting several patents directed to...more
In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman and Bryson, unanimously...more
The Federal Circuit relied on Nautilus to preserve functional language of a method claim in a decision published last Friday. In Cox Comm, Inc. v. Sprint, No. 2016-1013, the Federal Circuit held that the term “processing...more
Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more
Cox Communications Inc., et al. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12- 487-SLR, March 21, 2016. Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding 43 terms from five patents....more
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. This is a declaratory judgment action. Defendant has asserted infringement against various customers of plaintiff on their...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Reverses Obviousness Ruling on Medical Device Patents - On September 8, 2015, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling invalidating three...more
The Court found patents indefinite through partial summary judgment motion practice. Patent owner requested entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in writing and orally. Accused infringer objected, contending that...more
The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings for invalidity under § 101. The motion was granted. The plaintiff’s claim construction was adopted for purposes of the motion. The Court then applied the two-step...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
On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (Alice)[i]. In Alice, the Court held that several patents that pertained to a computerized platform for eliminating risk...more
Judge Clarence Cooper adopted Special Master Gale R. Peterson’s report in its entirety ruling in favor of Datascape, Inc., in denying the summary judgment motion of Spring Spectrum, L.P, and Sprint Solutions, Inc....more