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
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Addresses Waiver of Argument Not Raised in Request for...more
Addressing the issue of whether to discretionally deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) under the General Plastics factors when there is no “significant relationship” between the petitioners, the Director of the US...more
Addressing when a drawing in a prior art reference includes a teaching that is “clear on its face,” the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision denying...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director vacated Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that presented a sua sponte construction of a claim term in dispute, holding that the parties were not...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Kathi Vidal vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board improperly applied the precedential...more
In a case involving sua sponte review, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated an inter partes review (IPR) decision denying institution, found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had statutory...more
This recurring feature highlights any new PTAB precedential and/or informative decisions, any new substantive Director review decisions, and any new substantive decisions issued by the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP). The...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides quarterly updates and insights into how best to handle PTAB trial proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at...more
Addressing, for the first time, the issue of patentability of multiple dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fifth paragraph, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted rehearing and modified the Patent...more
US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Katherine K. Vidal issued a precedential opinion clarifying the standard under which the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) can institute on an inter partes review (IPR) petition...more
Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022) In a return to the Federal Circuit, this case again sets precedent concerning Patent Office Director review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board...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
On April 5, 2022, the U.S. Senate confirmed Kathi Vidal as the next Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Senate’s confirmation comes more than one-year since former director, Andrei Iancu,...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued that the...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In a recent decision, Commissioner Andrew Hirschfeld, who is currently performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, issued the first post-Arthrex...more
Year-End Analysis and Future Forecasts on the Most Significant Developments Impacting Post-Grant Proceedings. Attend ACI’s inaugural PTAB Practice Briefing virtually on December 2nd for in-depth discussions and year-end...more
Is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) constitutional? This was a question asked by Mobility Workx in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, 2021-1441, 2021 WL 4762265 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Mobility Workx raised...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) updated its June 29, 2021, interim procedure to implement the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., and specifically updated the Arthrex Q&As section....more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a highly-anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., finding that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”)—the judges who sit on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...more