Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
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
It's been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. (If interested, here's an alert about what's kept me away: a CFAA trial we wrapped up in late July.) But I am back, so let's look at the latest on the Section...more
The US Patent Office (USPTO) recently issued new guidance and three examples for AI-related patent claims, which indicate that claims applying AI to a process are unlikely to render the process patent-eligible at the USPTO...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new guidance on patent subject matter eligibility, specifically concerning AI inventions. This guidance aims to assist patent examiners in assessing whether claims in a...more
On July 17th, the USPTO issued a guidance update to help USPTO personnel and those who interact with the agency evaluate the subject matter eligibility of claims in patent applications involving artificial intelligence (AI)....more
On July 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced new guidance for examination of patent applications directed to critical and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)....more
In accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in October 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new subject matter eligibility guidance relating to AI...more
On July 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released updated guidance on patent subject matter eligibility, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI). This update, effective from July 17, 2024, is...more
On July 17, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance regarding the patent subject matter eligibility of claims concerning technology applicable to artificial intelligence (AI)....more
In a July 16 press release, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it issued a guidance update on “patent subject matter eligibility to address innovation in critical emerging technologies including...more
On July 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued new guidance on the patentability of AI-related inventions. Although the USPTO emphasized that its guidance does not change the law of 35 U.S.C....more
On July 17, the USPTO published an update to the patent eligibility guidance and added three new examples to aid practitioners and examiners in determining whether a claimed invention is eligible subject matter under Section...more
From the U.S. Supreme Court’s perspective, its Mayo and Alice decisions from 2012 and 2014, respectively, are still sufficient to govern patent law’s § 101 analysis. This inference stems in-part of the Supreme Court’s cert...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...more
We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more
Filing a continuation application from a parent patent is an implicit admission that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) applies to the resulting continuation patent. A Terminal Disclaimer in the continuation patent over...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down many patents on the grounds that they are invalid as directed to an abstract idea, relying on the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. In In re Elbaum (Fed. Cir. 12/20/2023)...more
The USPTO published its new “Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions” on the Federal Register on February 13, 2024. This new guidance was in part a response to the Federal Circuit’s Thaler decision, which ruled that...more
Kilpatrick’s Alton Absher and Andie Anderson recently presented “Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation” at the firm’s annual 2024 Advanced Patent Law Seminar. This full-day seminar featured discussions...more
This case addresses patent eligibility under Alice and whether the district court should have afforded the patent owner leave to amend its complaint. Background - Sanderling asserted three patents sharing a common...more
Through the vicissitudes of the continuing chaos of subject matter eligibility, Senators Coons and Tillis have been steadfast in attempting to provide a legislative solution. They chaired a series of Congressional hearings in...more
Patent eligibility is broken. The only semi-cogent arguments that I have ever heard in support of the status quo is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues too many broad, vague patents, and that 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Through the vicissitudes of the continuing chaos of subject matter eligibility, Senators Coons and Tillis have been steadfast in attempting to provide a legislative solution. They chaired a series of Congressional hearings...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), “diagnostic” patent claims have repeatedly...more
The U.S. Supreme Court conferred on two patent eligibility cases last week. And, if you are like me, you did not sleep a wink while anxiously awaiting the Court's decision. But if you're reading this, you likely already know...more
In a case involving sua sponte review, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated an inter partes review (IPR) decision denying institution, found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had statutory...more