PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Cease and Desist Letters: Protecting Your Intellectual Property the Right Way
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
The doctrine of equivalents (DOE), a creation of the Supreme Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. v. Linde Air Products (1950), is balanced by the concept of prosecution history estoppel (PHE), the contours of which were delineated...more
Judge Nelson S. Román (S.D.N.Y.) recently dismissed a patent-infringement complaint for failure to state a claim, emphasizing the requirement that plaintiffs plead factual allegations rather than legal conclusions....more
As the U.S. imposes sweeping new tariffs on over 180 countries and territories—including a baseline 10% rate and steep increases for China (originally 145%, now reduced to 30% for 90 days) and Taiwan (32%, now reduced to 10%...more
United States Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks (E.D.N.Y.) recommended that Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Joseph Wiesel’s (“Wiesel”) action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,514 (the “’514...more
On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision resolving the ongoing patent litigation between AliveCor and Apple concerning methods of cardiac monitoring purportedly employed in certain of Apple’s Watches. The...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court misconstrued claim terms based on a misapplication of the clear and unequivocal disavowal standard and vacated its noninfringement decision. Maquet...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
This month the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and in doing so, seemingly indicated its support for a broad interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor...more
In a landmark decision (UPC_CFI_15/2023) delivered on November 15, 2024, the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Munich (UPC, LDM) ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in a patent infringement case against...more
On September 23, 2024, Judge Kleeh of the Northern District of West Virginia denied Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Regeneron”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) related to Amgen’s filing of...more
We have been monitoring the dispute between Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (“Edwards”) and Meril Life Sciences Pvt., Ltd. (“Meril”) before and after the initial Federal Circuit decision. The dispute focused on whether Meril’s...more
The “safe harbor” of 35 USC § 271(e)(1) shields certain acts from liability for patent infringement if they are conducted “solely for uses reasonably related” to obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to...more
(December 27, 2023) Natera Inc. succeeded in obtaining a preliminary injunction against NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc.’s medical assay test. Natera’s ongoing federal lawsuit alleges that NeoGenomics’ product “RaDaR,” a tumor...more
IP rights can be vital to the success of medical device companies. Significant legislative changes governing some of these rights may be on the horizon. Senators Coons (Delaware), Durbin (Illinois), Hirono (Hawaii), and...more
Software is increasingly used as a medical device, transforming the healthcare industry with the goal of improving patient outcomes. However, developing software as a medical device involves navigating complex and evolving...more
Hosted by C5 Group, the 21st Annual Life Sciences IP Summit returns for another exciting year with curated programming with speakers from the pharma, biotech and medical device industries that will provide practical insights...more
Medical Device companies often need the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve “indications for use” of their products–for use selling them in the U.S. Those same companies often seek U.S. patent protection so...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS - Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of objective...more
Be careful of showing your claimed inventions at tradeshows. On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a summary judgment ruling that, by merely showcasing an embodying device at an industry event (the...more
In 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued six opinions regarding U.S. design patents: three precedential opinions and three unprecedential opinions. Unlike 2021 (where the two precedential opinions on...more
This is an appeal from a District of Delaware summary judgment order that held that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,186,208 (the ’208 Patent) are anticipated under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). ...more
On January 31st, 2023, a jury awarded $42 million to medical device company TissueGen in a patent infringement case against Boston Scientific for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,596,296, titled “Biodegradable Drug-Releasing...more
Below are highlights from the Rx IP’s team’s 2022 updates (see also our Top 10 Rx IP Update Reads of 2022): Contents: 1. Patent decisions on the merits 2. PMNOC Regulations: Fifth-year anniversary of major amendments,...more