The AI Shakeup: New Tech Innovations and the Future of Corporate Law
Regulatory Ramblings: Episode 44 - The Dangers of Non-Technically Trained Lawyers Advising on Technological Matters with Ronald Yu and Donald Day
Tips and Trends in Thought-Leadership Marketing
Guidepost in Motion EP27: Privacy Matters Part 2: “TMI”-The Privacy Dilemma of Social Media
Innovation in Compliance - Lessons About Leadership and Security with Paul Clayson
RPA As A Digital Transformation Catalyst
JONES DAY PRESENTS® Digital Health and Clinical Research: Understanding Regulatory Regimes
31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program - Originating a Compliance Ecosystem
The Importance of Knowing Your Industry and Business Leadership
I-17 – Engaging Your Employees in Today’s Workplace, Featuring Rick Turner at Whirlpool Corporation
Frenemies: Gaining Efficiency Through Shared Services
The Ever-Expanding Scope of Social Media Discovery
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Convergence: Growing Dissatisfaction with Biglaw and the Rise of the Alternatives
IP|Trend: Starting Up Your Protection of Intellectual Property
Richard Susskind (@RichardSusskind) Discusses His Lifetime Interest in the Future of Law
Polsinelli Podcasts - The Virtual World and Wage and Hour Issues
How Fenwick Partners Caught the Tech Wave
Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Summer/Fall 2014: Tech Sector Continues to Drive Bay Area Commercial Real Estate
Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Summer/Fall 2014: San Diego Joins Southern California Real Estate Recovery
The Alice two-step analysis on patent eligibility cannot venture far outside the actual claim language according to the Federal Circuit’s non-precedential opinion issued on Thursday, February 1, 2024. See Eolas Techs. v....more
Today, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Case Nos. 2022-1654, -1691, once again stepping into complex questions of patentable subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Over the past couple months, there has been a constant onslaught of opinions related to artificial intelligence (AI) – typically ChatGPT – and the legal profession, often hinting that AI will eventually put attorneys out of...more
The law of unintended consequences provides that actions “always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.” This folk wisdom holds true when it comes to the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022....more
Disclosure: Holland & Knight LLP, including the authors of this blog post, represents Polar Electro in the litigation described below. In the case of Jewel Pathway LLC v. Polar Electro Inc., No. 20 CIV. 4108 (ER), 2021 WL...more
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit highlights the importance of describing any improvements to technology in the specification. In the case of Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., WhitServe...more
In an appeal from a final rejection of a pending application, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to methods for determining “haplotype phase” were correctly rejected under 35 USC § 101...more
In the case of In Re: SARADA MOHAPATRA, Appellant, No. 2020-1935, 2021 WL 408755 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2021), Sarada Mohapatra sought to overturn a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), holding that his patent...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued the decision of Simio, LLC. V. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Dec. 29, 2020). In upholding the District Court’s decision that the software claims at issue...more
Light a fire, pour yourself some glogg (21+) and find a comfy corner to read about the biggest Section 101 stories of 2020 because we're gonna have the hap-hap-happiest time since Bing Crosby tap-danced with . . . Well, you...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s pleadings-stage determination that a patent claim directed to a delivery notification system was subject matter ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
By reversing the lower court’s ruling that the asserted claims were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Uniloc v. LG Electronics, the Federal Circuit resurrected Uniloc’s infringement suit against LG Electronics. It...more
Following guidance from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB has vacated a previous Board decision granting Covered Business Method review in Apple, Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018). The PTAB’s...more
The Federal Circuit recently decided a patent subject-matter eligibility case relating to computer memory in Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp. In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held...more
The most significant Federal Circuit decision in March was Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, another case finding eligible subject matter. What distinguishes this case—and demonstrates the inherently subjective...more
On November 10, 2016, Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that two video upload patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents, owned by Youtoo...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, gives patent owners another illustration of patent subject matter eligibility under section 101....more
Sally Beauty (Petitioner) filed a Petition requesting a review under the transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents of U.S. Patent No. 5,969,324, owned by Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IV)....more