4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Corporate Perspectives on Intellectual Property
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
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
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
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - U.S. State Data Privacy Update
From Academia to the Marketplace: The Ins and Outs of University Spinout Licenses with Dan O’Korn
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
In an appeal that attracted a dozen amici, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, five states, and the District of Columbia, the Second Circuit gave the Walker Process antitrust doctrine a shot in...more
In Hantz Software, LLC, v. Sage Intacct, Inc.1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate patents that are ineligible under...more
The Texas patent litigation monthly update for January 2023 summarizes one patent decision that issued from the Western District of Texas. This decision is one of the first Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss granted in a patent...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International ruling, patentees attempting to enforce their patents in the software arts have encountered a more significant hurdle for patent eligibility that has...more
COOPERATIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. KOLLECTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC. - Before Moore, Lourie, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. - Summary: Plausible allegations...more
Chief Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint alleging patent infringement because the claim-at-issue recites patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more
On March 15, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because the asserted patent claims were directed to process automation and therefore not eligible...more
There is a theme running through many patent-eligibility disputes that is analogous to baiting-and-switching. One party has claims that recite an invention. The other party characterizes those claims at a high level or...more
In recent years, District of Delaware Judges, including Judge Richard Andrews, have helped to manage the high volume of patent litigation cases by referring 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss to Magistrate Judges. Last week, in...more
Allegations of indirect patent infringement require, among other things, pleading that the defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent. It is not well-settled law, however, whether notice of a complaint itself satisfies...more
A district court in the Eastern District of Texas granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent is directed to credentialing...more
Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that...more
In Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2019-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020), the Federal Circuit clarified the venue analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which controls venue for patent...more
While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court of New Jersey - Summary: Venue in Hatch-Waxman cases is proper only in districts where actions...more
278-1. Federal Circuit Remands Patent Infringement Case to Answer Patent Ownership and License to Practice Questions - The Federal Circuit recently vacated a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent,...more
Our earlier Law360 guest article highlighted the rapid rise in prominence of the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas since U.S. District Judge Alan Albright was appointed to that court...more
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal because the claims directed to an interactive video game for learning to play guitar were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In its ruling, the court...more
A district court in Mississippi recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C § 101. The patent is directed to using a barcode to facilitate...more
In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more
In a recent order issued in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Godbey denied a Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion despite the Federal Circuit’s holding that the asserted patent was invalid as indefinite. Hyosung TNS, Inc. v....more
On December 5, 2019, Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas denied the defendant Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.’s (“Diebold”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc. et al.,...more