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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. WEBER, INC. [OPINION] (23-1438, 10/2/24) (Moore, Taranto, Cecchi) - Moore, J. The Court reversed the denial of judgment as a matter of law...more
Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2024) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion this week was a rare order that granted en banc review of a prior panel decision. Here, the...more
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
The hypothetical person with ordinary skill in the art will have a certain amount of requisite experience in the subject matter of the patent at the time of the invention of the patent....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition because a prior art patent figure did not provide exact dimensions, and therefore could not meet the relevant claim limitation. On...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion for a new trial on damages, finding that the plaintiff’s damages expert sufficiently showed that prior license...more
A district court recently precluded a patent attorney from testifying as an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit where the proposed expert lacked the requisite technical expertise to assist the trier of fact in...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more
Director Vidal recently issued sanctions against OpenSky Industries (“OpenSky”) for attempted extortion during settlement negotiations and abuse of the IPR process for US Patent 7,725,759 and awarded $413,264.15 to VLSI...more
The Federal Circuit used to get a lot of flak for failing to defer to factual findings of the tribunal it was reviewing. My (highly unscientific) sense is that such criticism has eased somewhat, but I was reminded of it when...more
In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office made precedential a prior decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) over when an expert declaration from an inter partes...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
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on...more
It was a tough day for opposing patent damages experts in Ecolab Inc. v. Dubois Chemicals, Inc., as Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware granted Daubert motions directed to both experts' reasonable royalty opinions. The...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s claim construction and jury instructions but reversed a premature judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on obviousness and an imprecise damages award....more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
In an ANDA case in the District of Delaware, the court has rejected an obviousness challenge to a patented method of increasing survival in patients having prostate cancer. The court found that early clinical trial results...more
Inter partes reviews (IPRs) are litigation-like procedures held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that are used to challenge the validity of patents. Typically,...more