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
What Makes a Case Exceptional? Panel: Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Albright,[1] with Judge Albright authoring the opinion. You should read this case if: you are seeking or opposing an award of attorneys’ fees under...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. BACKERTOP LICENSING LLC [OPINION] (23-2367, 23-2368, 24-1016, 24-1017 Prost, Hughes, and Stoll) - Hughes, J. The Court affirmed the District Court’s orders (1)...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
In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, Appeals Nos. 2021-1858, -1859, -1860 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the question before the...more
This case addresses the proper standard for an appeal of a discretionary decision by a successor judge as well as requests for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and certain circumstances that do not make a case...more
Phillip Morris can’t seem to catch its breath. As discussed in a previous post, just a few weeks ago the Federal Circuit upheld the ITC’s ban on the importation and sale of Phillip Morris’s line of heated tobacco and...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more
Sometimes just because the rules permit something doesn’t mean doing it is a good idea. As our latest case-of-the-week shows, the result could be an award of attorney fees. Case of the week: Realtime Adaptive Streaming...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an attorneys’ fees award after the patent owner brought successive patent infringement suits attempting “to refile to wipe the slate clean” after the first court was...more
The Patent Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a recent denial of a motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 285, an Ohio...more
In 2021, district courts were faced with resolving numerous requests by parties seeking attorney fees based on conduct in related USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Many of these requests came in the wake...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
Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 2020-1441 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered, and rejected, new...more
In re: Vivint, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1992 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2021) - In an appeal from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a party may challenge the validity of an...more
Hot out of the oven! In a rare move, a district court recently gave Domino’s a two-for-one deal on attorney’s fees. In Ameranth, Inc., v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., No. 12CV0733 DMS (WVG), 2021 WL 2550057 (S.D. Cal. June 21,...more
Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1646, -1656 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021) - Our Case of the Week focuses on the issue of indefiniteness, and particularly, terms that are construed as...more
Abbreviated new drug (ANDA) applicant Amneal petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of Almirall’s patent listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book for a prescription drug to treat acne. Almirall...more
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
Let’s face it, any litigation is expensive and a defendant that finds itself spending money battling claims against it only to have those claims later dismissed by the plaintiff is likely going to want to try to recoup the...more
In Amneal Pharmacueticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit professed to address a question it had not considered before: whether attorney's fees and a exceptional case determination was available for fees and costs...more
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. ALMIRALL, LLC - Before Dyk, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: While the Federal Circuit may be able to award fees under Section 285 for work...more
Addressing whether attorneys’ fees may be awarded in a patent infringement lawsuit where an accused infringer successfully invalidates claims in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-2054, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week features a new precedential decision dealing with the doctrine of...more
In another noteworthy year for patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit issued several decisions that altered the patent landscape, including three Supreme Court decisions. The topics of the key cases...more