(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 US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director vacated Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that presented a sua sponte construction of a claim term in dispute, holding that the parties were not...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
[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
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On November 1, 2021, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the first “Director review” to Samsung SDI Co. Director review is a new interim procedure that allows a party to seek review of a final written...more
Now that it’s been roughly a month since the Federal Circuit issued mass sua sponte Arthrex orders (which we discussed in Early Hints About What Happens Next After Arthrex), we thought it was worth checking in on what’s...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
The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory...more
IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex - In CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 19-2117, affirmatively petitioning for IPR waived the petitioner’s Appointments Clause...more
On January 31, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in view of Arthrex, but did so reluctantly because it disagreed with the merits and questioned the...more
In view of Arthrex, can an unsuccessful petitioner get a do-over of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR? The USPTO says no, and the Federal Circuit has been asked to consider the question in United Fire Protection...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew excited and disrupted the patent world... Inter partes review (IPR) reshaped patent law and patent litigation this decade after the America Invents Act took effect....more
In what has quickly turned into a controversial decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more
On October 31, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") issued a decision, authored by Judge Moore, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140. The CAFC held that the...more
Yesterday October 31, 2019, a 3-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen) issued a unanimous decision holding that the USPTO’s appointment practice for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violates the...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
Yesterday, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that the appointment scheme for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) is...more
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARKEMA INC., ARKEMA FRA NCE - Before Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. and IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-1205, -1360 (Fed. Cir. January 31, 2019) - The Court this week provided a...more