Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
Tonia Sayour in the Spotlight
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
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113, 10/24/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the...more
This is the third issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that highlights developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed to be...more
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more
This month’s ITC Wrap-Up reviews a recent investigation exploring exemptions to the Commission’s remedial orders. Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304, Final Determination (Dec. 18, 2023)....more
Addressing the evidentiary showing necessary to prove whether a foreign publication is publicly available, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not abuse its...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Appeal Nos. 2018-1363, et al. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2019) - In these appeals from the United States District Court...more
IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC - Before Prost, Reyna and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Iridescent sued AT&T and Ericsson for infringement of a patent...more
Calculating royalty rates as part of a patent dispute often becomes a hotly-disputed issue, where opposing economic theories from expert witnesses are pinned against one another. As a litigant, care must be taken when...more
School may be out for the summer, but public colleges and universities would do well to spend their break shoring up strategies and defenses against potential inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Last week the Federal...more
A recent decision in the Eastern District of Texas should provide standard-essential patent (“SEP”) owners with more clarity and optimism when negotiating SEP licenses. Coming on the heels of Judge Koh’s decision in the FTC’s...more
On February 15, a Texas federal jury found that Ericsson did not breach its obligation to offer HTC licenses to its standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The verdict ended...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1521 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Court reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
Appealed PTAB decisions are generally accorded a deferential “substantial evidence” standard by the Federal Circuit. However, this deference did not prevent Ericsson from prevailing in its appeal to the Federal Circuit to...more
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused...more
On March 20, 2018, the public version of Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy Payne’s March 7, 2018 order tossing a $75 million jury verdict obtained by Ericsson against TCL Communication was released. Ericsson...more
On 21 December 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released its judgment in TCL Communications v Ericsson setting a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rate for Ericsson’s Standard...more
Yesterday, in Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, an expanded 7-judge PTAB panel ruled that a patent owner waives a claim to sovereign immunity in an IPR “by filing an action in federal court alleging...more
Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys. Inc., et al. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a spectrum of issues surrounding industry standards for electronic devices that wirelessly access the internet,...more
RAND Commitment Relevant to Damages - In ERICSSON, INC. v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, and -1633, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s judgment...more
On Dec. 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion in Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., Nos. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014). The panel—consisting of Judges Kathleen O'Malley,...more