(Podcast) The Briefing: Does This Court’s Ruling Put an End to Tattoo Copyright Cases?
The Briefing: Does This Court’s Ruling Put an End to Tattoo Copyright Cases?
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 31: Trade Secrets and Protecting Confidential Information with Jennie Cluverius of Maynard Nexsen
4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
(Podcast) The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
(Podcast) The Briefing: Deep Dive into the NO FAKES Act
The Briefing: Deep Dive into the NO FAKES Act
(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
Intellectual property considerations for launching new cannabis products
The Briefing: Affiliate Marketing vs Retail Services - TTAB's Landmark Ruling
Johnson Case’s Potential Impact on Colleges, NIL, and College Athletics — Highway to NIL
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: How to Avoid Bearing The Risks of A Naked License (Featured Podcast)
The Briefing: How to Avoid Bearing The Risks of A Naked License (Featured)
The Briefing: IOC Goes For Gold In Trademark Suit Over Logan Paul - Kevin Durant Sports Drink
The Briefing: IOC Goes For Gold In Trademark Suit Over Logan Paul - Kevin Durant Sports Drink (Podcast)
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Employer Options in a Non-Noncompete World
The latest on: NFL Anti-Trust decision; Record Labels Sue Over Generative AI; Copyright Office clarifies Termination Rights, Royalties, Transfers, Disputes, and the MMA.
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
Celanese Int'l Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2022-1827, 2024 WL 3747277, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) - Manufacturers beware! Your sales of products based on secret manufacturing processes may invalidate your...more
A private sale may start an inventor’s one-year filing clock, but it likely won’t save a patentee from an intervening prior art reference. On July 31, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more
On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination...more
The world of intellectual property law is always changing, and it can be difficult to keep up. Here are 13 developments in patent law so far in 2024 to help you stay in the know....more
Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the...more
As we have previously written about, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has granted a petition for an en banc rehearing of LKQ Corp. et al v. GM Global Technology to rule on the...more
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the...more
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) resolved district court splits regarding obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) by holding that ODP is still a valid challenge to patent validity...more
In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has granted a petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the test for determining obviousness of design patents has been overruled by the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently revived a patent infringement suit dismissed in the Western District of Wisconsin brought by Inguran, LLC (“Inguran”) against ABS Global, Inc. (“ABS”). The CAFC...more
The Court’s reasoning in Amgen v. Sanofi upholds the Federal Circuit’s long-standing requirement to enable the full scope of a claimed invention. Since the Patent Act of 1790, patent law has required describing inventions...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC) decision on enablement in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (CA Fed. 2021). The Court thus left in place a significant decision making it more...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but don’t complain to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) if a patentee calls you an infringer, claims you copied, or threatens to sue your customers. Holding speech...more
Be careful of showing your claimed inventions at tradeshows. On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a summary judgment ruling that, by merely showcasing an embodying device at an industry event (the...more
On June 1, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions in ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc. regarding classification of the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more
Doctrine of equivalents (DOE) can be applied as a mechanism to hold a party liable for patent infringement even if the product or process does not literally infringe a patent claim, if the difference is “insubstantial”....more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that it may not rely on evidence and arguments that fall outside the scope of the instituted grounds...more
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect? When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the design is ornamental, for example a pattern, on an article such...more
As discussed in a previous blog post, since Mayo v. Prometheus, critics of medical treatment patents have advocated that such patents should be banned from patenting. While such arguments seemed futile based on the consistent...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that two patents listed in the Orange Book for Aveed® had not been shown to be obvious. Although prior art...more
In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. ...more
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed decisions in two inter-partes review (IPR) proceedings that patents owned by ICOS Corporation directed to tadalafil formulations (used in the...more