Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
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
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post Grant Radio: Episode #16: Kevin McNish, McNish PLLC
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
This decision emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B)....more
Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Aug. 1, 2024). Opinion by Chen, joined by Lourie and Cunningham. Unified filed an IPR petition challenging a Voice Tech patent directed to using voice...more
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...more
LKQ Corp., et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) May 21, 2024). En banc opinion by Stoll, joined by Moore, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stark. Concurring opinion by...more
On February 13, the USPTO issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted innovations. The guidance, effective as of February 13, 2024, emphasizes that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable and the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1373, -1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023) In appeals from two inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) on related patents, the Federal Circuit...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - HIP, INC. v. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION (2022-1696, 5/2/23) (Lourie, Clevenger, and Taranto) Lourie, J. The Court reversed the district court’s decision regarding joint...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
In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...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
[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
We recently wrote about the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Donner Technology, LLC. v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, where the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of an obviousness challenge due to its finding that the prior...more
On November 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, holding that the PTAB applied an...more
DONNER TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. PRO STAGE GEAR, LLC - Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A determination as to whether a reference is analogous art to a claimed invention...more
One of the steps in a proper obviousness analysis is to ascertain the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that the patent owner could not establish an earlier date of invention based on evidence originating from the...more
KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. V. GRACO CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Inventor testimony of prior conception must be independently...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Section 103 does not, by its terms, define the “art to which [the] subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,” but longstanding precedent couches this question of fact in terms of “whether the art is analogous or not.”...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision determining that the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (ADROCA), LLC (“Petitioner”) failed to prove unpatentable claims 1-52 of U.S. Patent No....more
"Intuitive" to Combine Insufficient to Support Obviousness Rejection - The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a case...more