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
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
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
Be an Expert: Precedential PTAB Decision on Conclusory Expert TestimonyStutti TilwaA recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on...more
A recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on expert declarations in their inter partes reviews (“IPR”). On August 24, 2022, the...more
As patent practitioners know, Daubert motions can be some of the most hotly contested and pivotal motions in the life of a patent case. These motions are used to exclude testimony from an opponent's expert witness, usually on...more
Experts play a key role in patent litigation as they explain complex technical issues including infringement, validity, and damages to judges and juries. The persuasiveness of their testimony can often mean the difference...more
Courts continue to measure that fine line between reliable expert testimony and legal opinion that patent experts constantly walk on. In a recent opinion, the Eastern District of Texas denied a patentee’s motion to exclude...more
Last month in Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's determinations in six inter partes review proceedings that invalidated the challenged claims for being...more
In infringement suits, the patentee must show that each element of a patent claim is infringed either literally by an accused product or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement means the accused...more
Imagine sitting in a conference room with your carefully crafted set of questions for a deposition, and you are exploring the basis for an opposing expert’s opinions. But instead of giving thoughtful answers, the expert...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held in a precedential opinion that expert witnesses must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Because Kyocera’s expert did not...more
In an appeal, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the issue of whether a patent provides sufficient written description of a negative limitation split the panel at the Federal Circuit. Novartis...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
As Lord Justice Arnold highlighted in one of his last judgments as a trial judge, the Patents Court “depends on the assistance it receives from expert witnesses”. ...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by...more
In intellectual property litigation, the outcome of many high stakes cases has turned on expert testimony. It is therefore important for a litigator to spend time and effort to properly identify, select, and prepare the...more
A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners had sought...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
Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more
The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more
In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more
In 2011, DePuy-Synthes, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Inc. sued Globus Medical, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In that suit, Synthes alleged that Globus had infringed three Synthes...more
Addressing the location of a deposition of patent owner’s declarant, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that, absent an agreement between the parties to...more
Following defendant Monster’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, the patentee provided declarations by two expert witnesses in opposition. Monster noticed depositions of these experts, but the patentee moved for a...more