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
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more
These days, patent courts across the world have to address the question of how to deal with AI-generated inventions. The German Federal Court of Justice ("FCJ") has recently issued a landmark decision (decision of June...more
Design protection continues to be a priority for governments around the world. Global design protection is gradually becoming more modern and harmonized. Building on earlier developments, China made progress to implement...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
Last week Pfizer filed a lawsuit in a federal court of Australia against respondents Samsung Bioepis, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Organon, and Arrow, to halt sales of their biosimilar BRENZYS (etanercept). Pfizer alleges that the...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
The Situation: Pfizer, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, brought an application for preliminary discovery of certain confidential documents belonging to Samsung Bioepis ("SB"), a competitor, believing those documents would...more
This afternoon the Federal Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in Meat & Livestock Australia Limited v Cargill, Inc [2018] FCA 51. The matter has attracted substantial media attention in Australia and generated...more
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (“GEMSA”), a foreign non-practicing entity (“NPE”) organized under the laws of Australia, filed almost 40 patent lawsuits in five batches in 2015 and 2016. The majority of these...more
The Australian Federal Court recently ruled that to be eligible for an extension, a patent must cover a “product” rather than a “method of use.” AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd (AbbVie) filed requests to extend Australian patents...more
Welcome to the first edition of K&L Gates Australia, Patent and Plant Breeder’s Rights Year in Review in which we examine the significant judgments, developments and events effecting patents and plant breeder’s rights in...more
Following the recent public consultation in view of the Australian High Court's decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics ("Myriad"), IP Australia has released new Examination Guidelines for applications which may be affected by...more
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) has issued final patent eligibility guidance under the Australian High Court’s decision in D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Where the USPTO extrapolated from the U.S. Supreme Court...more
It remains to be seen if this new Myriad decision in Australia will be extended as it was in the U.S. to prevent virtually any product found in nature from being patented....more
Clearly the High Court has given an answer to a question, but was that question the one we anticipated? That in itself is an open question!...more
The Australian High Court yesterday unanimously overturned six lower court judges and dismissed some very careful reasoning to not only follow the U.S. Supreme Court in invalidating claims to the BRCA1 and 2 gene sequences,...more
Just over one year after the Full Federal Court of Australia unanimously upheld an earlier Federal Court decision that naturally occurring nucleic acid molecules are patentable in Australia, the High Court of Australia has...more
Colleagues in Australia have been spreading the bad news: The High Court of Australia followed the lead (?) of the U.S. Supreme Court and determined that Myriad cannot patent the isolated BRCA1 gene in Australia. Thanks to...more
D'Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc & Anor [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad, deciding once and for all that isolated nucleic acids do not define patent-eligible...more
D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 - The High Court of Australia has today handed down its decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, unanimously striking down the validity of the first three claims...more
Last year in AMP v Myriad Genetics, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that isolated, naturally occuring DNA are not patent eligible, which caused considerable consternation in the biotech community. However, this does not...more
The Full Federal Court of Australia has handed down its long awaited decision in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc today, affirming that isolated DNA and RNA are patentable subject matter under Australian law....more
Due to the complexity of Australian patent litigation, it can take more than 18 months for a patent dispute to be finally determined by a judge. This is more than enough time for an infringing competitor to irreversibly...more