Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more
A major Federal Circuit ruling just sent a clear message to AI-driven healthtech companies: AI alone won’t get you a patent....more
Attend ACI's 21st Annual Conference on Paragraph IV Disputes and join leaders from brand and generic pharmaceutical companies, renowned outside counsel, esteemed members of the judiciary, government, and academia to: -...more
The concept of the "person of ordinary skill in the art" (POSITA) remains pivotal in patent law, particularly in evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and compliance with enablement and written description requirements...more
While Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions, such as predictive AI, have been around for decades, generative AI systems are recent innovations with far reaching implications for patent law. Generative AI, such as ChatGPT,...more
Released on January 14, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Strategy aims to serve as a guide for the challenges and goals the agency navigates while working toward the full capabilities of...more
As 2024 draws to a close, several crucial developments — some aimed at modernizing long-standing legal practices, others addressing emerging challenges — have reached patent law. Originally published in Law360 - December...more
It is well-established that the availability of a prior art reference is dependent on the “effective filing date” of a patent or patent application. Any practitioner seeking to invalidate a patent knows that the ideal...more
Companies in multiple industries are experimenting with artificial intelligence to generate specific solutions to long-standing challenges. To this end, numerous companies are filing patent applications for inventions...more
Short answer: Yes, but… Short answer: Yes, but… Many practitioners in sensitive technology areas file patent applications with non-publication requests or may abandon their applications if examination is not going well...more
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LIFE SCIENCES - Life sciences companies are forming AI-driven strategic collaborations with tech giants, creating synergy that promises to revolutionize the industry. Companies like NVIDIA,...more
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is changing how practitioners prepare and submit documents. The USPTO’s recent Guidance on Use of...more
The explosion of artificial intelligence has raised some challenging questions in patent law, particularly with prior art, or the body of knowledge available prior to the filing of patent application. Two of the most...more
The use of artificial intelligence ("AI") tools in the patent application process gives rise to a vast array of risks and opportunities for intellectual property ("IP") practitioners and society at large. IP practitioners...more
Given their potential to revolutionize many aspects of legal practice and intellectual property, artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools have become a mainstay in the legal space. While AI has its benefits, it also carries...more
Many life science companies are using AI/ML to identify new disease targets and new therapeutics, predict the efficacy and toxicity of potential clinical therapeutic candidates, design clinical trials and dosing or treatment...more
The USPTO published a request for comments (RFC) on April 30th, focusing on how advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) may impact the USPTO’s assessment of patentability governing (i) what may qualify as prior art and...more
On April 30, the USPTO announced a Request for Comments (RFC) seeking public feedback on how AI could affect USPTO evaluations on patentability, including what qualifies as prior art and the assessment of the level of...more
On April 30, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Request for Comments (RFC) seeking stakeholder input on fifteen questions regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on (1) prior...more
The USPTO is seeking public input on whether prior art must be authored by humans and how, if at all, AI-generated disclosures should be treated differently from non-AI generated disclosures....more
On April 30, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a Request for Comment on how AI technology could affect the PTO’s evaluation of patentability, particularly with respect to qualifying prior art and the...more
A global consensus seems to be forming that an artificial intelligence (AI) system does not deserve—at least for now—to be named as an inventor on a patent application. The question is under consideration and being settled in...more
On February 12, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released detailed guidance regarding inventorship of inventions created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). The guidance, signed by Kathi Vidal,...more
On February 12, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued guidance clarifying the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the inventorship of patents. The document exhibits a nuanced approach to the...more
For a patent to be valid, the critical question often is whether its invention was obvious, namely whether the differences between the invention and what existed before, i.e., the prior art, would have been obvious to a...more