5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
5 Key Takeaways | Hot Topics in Biopharma
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers
Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World
On February 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision reversing the International Trade Commission finding that US Synthetic’s composition of matter claim was not...more
Over the last 15 years, the discussion over the types of subject matter that are considered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been mostly focused on the software and biological fields. Several years ago, the Federal...more
The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a determination by the US International Trade Commission regarding subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court concluded that the...more
Fire up some hot cocoa, turn up the Perry Como Christmas album and settle in to read this year's Top Section 101 Patent Eligibility Stories. But, as always, this season is about gathering with family and friends, watching...more
It's been a while since our last blog post, so let's do a quick roundup. In early April, the Solicitor General recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court hear two patent eligibility cases: 1) Interactive Wearables v. Polar...more
We are all familiar with the rhetorical device of a parade of horribles -- a series of very bad things that could happen if some action is (or isn't) taken. Often, these parades involve a degree of hyperbole. In other...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - LG ELECTRONICS INC. v. IMMERVISION, INC. [OPINION] (2021-2037, 2021-2038, 7/11/2022) (Newman, Stoll, Cunningham) - Stoll, J. Affirming Board decision in IPR finding that...more
This month, there were six new complaints filed at the ITC, including complaints filed by: Hand Held Products, Inc. and Honeywell International Inc. (Certain Barcode Scanners, Scan Engines, Mobile Computers with Barcode...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more
In a recently issued Commission Opinion, the ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,045,871 (the ’871 patent) are invalid as directed to an abstract idea. Certain Road Construction...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
On April 2, 2019, the Commission issued an order denying Respondents’ requests to use the Early Disposition Program. Certain Data Transmission Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
When faced with allegations of patent infringement at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a respondent must quickly evaluate whether or not to request an AIA review (hereinafter, inter partes review for convenience) at...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
Dispositive summary judgment in district court patent cases is somewhat common, but similar early dispositions of Section 337 investigations in the ITC are rare in comparison. One such outcome happened recently in Certain UV...more
Commission Reverses ALJ’s Dismissal Of U.S. Steel’s False Designation Of Origin Claim And Sets Hearing On U.S. Steel’s Antitrust Claim In Certain Carbon Steel; U.S. Steel Withdraws Trade Secret Theft Claim – 2017 has produced...more
In the last year, this blog has covered a number of substantial developments at the International Trade Commission. Among other things, 2016 saw (1) an increased usage of the ITC’s 100-day program for early resolution of...more
On August 22, 2016, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw of the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued his final initial determination (“the ID”) in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components...more
On April 4, 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a notice stating that it would not review an Initial Determination by Judge Dee Lord finding the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,398,546 and 8,446,275...more