(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
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
Was the classic song “Over The Rainbow” plagiarized? How about a claim of copyright infringement against the script for “The Holdovers?” AI Legal strategies switch to claims of CMI removal
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
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
8 Key Takeaways | The Presumption of Irreparable Harm After the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: USPTO Suspends Applications Including Criticisms of Known Living Figures
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - USPTO Suspends Action on Trademark Applications Targeting Names of Public Figures
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: USPTO Suspends Action on Trademark Applications Targeting Names of Public Figures
Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Paralegal Insights: A Collaborative Trademark Practice Series 2
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Appeals Review Panel (“the Panel”) recently clarified that means-plus-function claims do not require that the specification disclose equivalents. See Ex parte...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...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
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
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
On January 28, 2021, the PTAB held a Boardside Chat webinar at which three PTAB judges discussed four recent developments related to America Invents Act (“AIA”) trials....more
Last month, in January 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a memorandum (the “January 2021 Memorandum”) clarifying how it will analyze claims for indefiniteness in AIA post-grant...more
On January 6, 2021, US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Andrei Iancu, Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld and Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick issued a memorandum to the members of the Patent...more
Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) requiring the PTAB to change the standard used to assess the definiteness requirement under 35...more
On January 6, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a Memorandum that changed the indefiniteness analysis under 35 U.S.C. §112 that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) applies in...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit decided that claims related to a method of fishing that involved evaluating the water to be fished were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is a bit of a head scratcher as to why this...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
In an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
In This Issue - US Taxation of IP After Tax Reform - U.S. taxation of intellectual property has become astoundingly more complex after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new rules are so complex that the IRS and Treasury...more
Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is analyzed under different standards by District Courts and the PTAB. District Courts apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus requiring a patent’s...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
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more
In a precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the longstanding US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) practice of using a lower threshold to assess claim indefiniteness during prosecution relative...more
On August 25, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential opinion in Ex Parte McAward, reaffirming the Patent Office’s use of a lower pre-issuance threshold for indefiniteness distinct from the Supreme...more
Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more
In re Packard - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), invoking the...more
In In re Packard, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding the rejection of Packard’s claims for indefiniteness. The per curiam decision approaches the issue from the...more