4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Jones Day Talks: PTAB's Busy Docket and What's Changed After SAS Institute
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
Our Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for July 2024 covers three decisions of interest from the Eastern District of Texas granting motions related to subject matter eligibility, stays pending inter partes review (IPR),...more
On appeal from a motion to dismiss based on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a district court appropriately analyzed certain claims as representative claims and that the...more
In a lengthy and detailed opinion, EDVA Judge Hannah Lauck has dismissed a suit alleging infringement of seven patents relating to coordinating drivers to transport vehicles between locations, holding that the patents were...more
Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation - Before Moore, Chief Judge, Stoll and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York....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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit on § 101 grounds, rejecting the patentee’s argument that claim construction or discovery was required before assessing...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
CAREDX, INC. V. NATERA, INC. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Hughes - Summary: Expert testimony that steps of challenged patent claims were unconventional failed to preclude summary judgment of ineligibility where...more
In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 2022 WL 443202 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2022), Mr. Tropp alleged infringement of two of his related patents. The parties agreed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that...more
Addressing inter partes review (IPR) estoppel after the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2018 decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled its decision in Shaw...more
While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more
Claims Covering Human Engineering That Exploit a Naturally-Occurring Phenomenon Are Patent Eligible - In Illumina, Inc. V. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Appeal No. 19-1419, the Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision...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
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC - Before PROST, DYK, and WALLACH. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Summary: The grant or denial of...more
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC - Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Electronic Communication...more
Over the past year, Pebble Tide LLC has asserted its two patents against an array of companies – from banks and insurance companies to entertainment conglomerates – alleging that the defendants infringe patents related to...more
Curb Mobility sued a handful of taxicab companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and alleged infringement of a patent titled "System for Credit Card Acceptance in Taxicabs." Curb's complaint focused on...more
Plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,548,902, which related to online loan origination services. The defendant moved for...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...more
Addressing patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s decision for failure to address the parties’ claim construction dispute before ruling...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