Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
Intellectual Property In Department of Defense Contracting
September 21, 2024, marked the seventh anniversary of the significant amendments to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (Regulations). This article provides an update on activities in the seventh year...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
Copan Italia SPA v. Puritan Med. Prods. Co. LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1943 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2024) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion concerning a patent case this week had nothing to do with patent law....more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified...more
In H. Lundbeck A-S v. Lupin Ltd., Case No. 2022-1194 (Fed. Circ. December 7, 2023), Plaintiffs, H. Lundbeck A/S (“Lundbeck”) and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals...more
In this week’s Case of Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed inter partes review decisions upholding as patentable Teleflex’s challenged patent claims directed to a method for use of a guide extension catheter in arteries. This...more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Teva”) petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, ending a nearly nine-year court...more
Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit granted panel rehearing of and vacated its prior decision in Novartis...more
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. V. HEC PHARM CO., LTD. Before Moore, Hughes, and Linn (dissenting). Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Silence regarding the presence or...more
(Mar. 31, 2022) Last Friday, ImmunoGen won an appeal at the Federal Circuit in ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Hirshfeld. The lawsuit is a civil action to order the granting of U.S. Application No. 14/509,809 (‘809), titled “Anti-FOLR...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
MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more
BIOGEN INTERNATIONAL GMBH V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Summary: A specification may not...more
In This Issue - Assignor Estoppel: When Are Inventors Allowed to Attack Their Own Inventions? In Minerva v. Hologic, the Supreme Court recently upheld the patent-law doctrine of assignor estoppel—which bars the...more
In 2020, the US Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit continued to refine key aspects of intellectual property law on issues that will have an impact on litigation, patent prosecution and business...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued its holding in a case dealing with asserting claims of an extended patent covering administration of dimethyl fumarate formulations to treat multiple sclerosis (MS). Dimethyl fumarate...more
Case Summary- On March 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit found that patents claiming methods of preparing an extracellular fraction of cell-free DNA that is enriched in fetal DNA were patent eligible and not invalid under 35...more
This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has handed down a pair of opinions concerning Section 101 in the field of pharmaceuticals and life sciences. In both cases, the district courts held claims of the...more
The latest Federal Circuit decision on subject matter eligibility in the life sciences came down (by a divided court) in favor of eligibility, in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. The claims at issue fell into the...more
Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020) - On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that data obtained after an asserted patent’s priority date may be used to demonstrate what is “necessarily present” in a prior art embodiment. Although the district court...more
BUT FOR A CLERICAL ERROR TO BE ADDRESSED ON REMAND, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS FINDINGS OF INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Case Name: INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS...more
Finding that the number of possible embodiments that could fit within the limitations of the asserted claims numbered in the “tens of thousands,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not...more
On 30 July, the Court of Appeal of The Hague ruled on the formal entitlement to priority following from a US provisional patent application. The attack on priority in this case is part of a recent trend by parties in patent...more