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
The Federal Circuit has ruled that a US patent-holder plaintiff may be able to recover damages for a defendant’s foreign sales of infringing products if the foreign sales were proximately caused by the defendant’s improperly...more
In the August 2018 edition of Hogan Lovells’ Standard Essential Patent (SEP) Update, we report on recent news and case decisions from China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This bi-monthly newsletter...more
The Supreme Court recently answered the question whether a patent owner can collect damages caused by an infringer’s sales outside the U.S. Federal law typically reaches only conduct within the country, but the justices made...more
The prominent state of patent litigation in the United States and Germany is due not only to the size of its markets, but also to a recent increase in hearings before the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent...more
Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more
Patents are valuable intellectual property assets that grant their owners a limited monopoly over the sale and use of the patented subject matter for a fixed period of time. The patent permits its owner to recover potentially...more
Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more
On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)....more
On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to consider whether damages for infringement of a U.S. patent include lost profits resulting from activities outside the U.S....more
A case currently pending petition to the United States Supreme Court could further define the scope of potential patent infringement liability for U.S. based companies that sell products intended to be used abroad. If the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the past term handed down a decision, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., that greatly expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion. This equitable doctrine prevents a...more
Last May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly-anticipated decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., reversing the Federal Circuit and holding that, when a patent holder sells a product, it exhausts all...more
Patent owners have long imposed post-sale restrictions on their patented goods and relied on U.S. patent laws to enforce these restrictions. For instance, companies have sought to enforce “single use” restrictions on their...more
The US Patent Act gives patent holders the right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing the invention into the United States. The premise behind...more
In 1628, Lord Coke in his “Institutes of the laws of England” summarized the common law on restraints on the alienation of chattels stating that any attempt by a seller to restrict resale or use of the chattel after selling...more
Hailed by some as the “right to repair”, on May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller’s patent rights are not valid beyond the first sale of the patented product. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc....more
Patent owners can no longer restrict the use of their patented products after the products are sold. Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, a patent owner’s rights are “exhausted” once the patent owner sells the product. ...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a patent owner's initial sale of a product, in the U.S. or in a foreign country, exhausts all of the U.S. patent rights in...more
An authorized sale exhausts all patent rights in the item sold. In Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. No. 15-1189, May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court found that patent exhaustion is “uniform and...more
The Supreme Court last week issued its long-awaited decision regarding patent exhaustion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International. The decision, which overturns longstanding Federal Circuit precedent, curtails...more
For the fifth time this session, and following fast on the heels of its landmark decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods earlier in May, the Supreme Court again reversed the Federal Circuit. The case, Impression Products,...more
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court limited a patent owner’s ability to control products after an authorized initial sale. In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the Court reversed long-standing...more
Manufacturers have long used patents, licenses and litigation to deter competitive products and restrict secondary markets in their products. The U.S. Supreme Court just dealt these practices a severe blow, confirming that a...more
The Supreme Court issued a 7-1 ruling in Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. that eliminated the ability for a patent holder (“patentee”) to enforce, through patent law, post-sale restrictions on an authorized...more