IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
The Federal Circuit determined that if a company misleads consumers about the nature of a product by making false patent marking claims, it can be held liable under the Lanham Act. False marking claims under the Lanham Act...more
In the 1950’s, Alan Turing famously asked, “Can machines think?” Decades later, artificial intelligence—a term coined after Turing’s death—has become a facet of our everyday lives. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used...more
The Background: In response to the Biden administration's "Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence" on October 30, 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more
The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has triggered a surge in the filings of patent applications, from machine learning models to applications of those models. See USPTO, Artificial Intelligence (AI)...more
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the remarkable ability to develop novel solutions to problems, and patent law has historically protected those solutions. Under current statutes and jurisprudence, however, only...more
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s The Interplay: Key Decisions at the Intersection of Antitrust & Life Sciences, a monthly bulletin that will highlight developments in the antitrust and life sciences space. We will...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021), that the claims of two of Amgen's patents were invalid for lack enablement. The...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...more
On November 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen’s petition to review the “enablement requirement” of Section 112 of the Patent Act. See generally Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (U.S. 2022). The Court’s decision will...more
Can an artificial intelligence (AI) system be an inventor? Not in the eyes of the Federal Circuit and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). ...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that only human beings – and not an artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered an “inventor” under US patent law. (We wrote about this issue way back in 2017, by the way…)... ...more
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues...more
Although this blog typically focuses on decisions rendered in intellectual property and/or antitrust cases currently in or that originated in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware or are in the Federal...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a report digesting the feedback it received concerning issues of patent policy for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The report, “Public Views on...more
Use of artificial intelligence has grown enormously in recent years. A decade ago, machine learning was a new and exotic technology—at least, for mainstream commercial applications—with few companies patenting ML-based...more
Canada’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Act came into force on March 25, 2020. Perhaps overlooked amongst emergency relief, health care and financial effects is Part 12 of the Act which makes changes to the Patent Act. Why...more
Section 112 of the Patent Act as codified, entitled "Specification" in the statute, specifies the amount of disclosure required to support a patent claim (among other requirements). Section 112(a) contains three...more
As artificial intelligence systems become more prevalent in daily life, efforts to create a unifying set of AI principles have intensified. In the past few months, at least three major works have been published on the issue....more
Two recent letters to the US Senate stand on opposite sides of the debate over patent subject matter eligibility. Proposed legislation could reform Sections 101 and 112 of the US Patent Act, changing the way patent subject...more
As technologies advance, the Patent Office (as well as the Nation’s courts) must utilize Section 101 of the Patent Act to place reasonable limitations on patent eligibility to ensure that our patent system balances the...more
On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court threw out a $399 million damages award against Samsung for infringing three design patents, opening the door on a new era in design patent infringement damages and the...more
In 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Octane Fitness (IP Update, Vol. 17, No. 5), in which it examined the fee-shifting provision of the Patent Act and clarified the types of “exceptional” cases...more
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined a majority of appellate courts that have rejected rigid tests for attorneys’-fees awards in favor of flexible discretion at the district court level. The...more
In most litigation, each party pays its own attorney fees and costs, regardless of the outcome of the case. The Patent Act of 1952, however, allowed for an award of fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation in...more
We are pleased to announce the Summer 2015 issue of The World in US Courts: Orrick's Quarterly Review of Decisions Applying US Law To Global Business and Cross-Border Activities. This issue discusses 13 new decisions that...more