Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Wolf Greenfield’s New Shareholders
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
Tonia Sayour in the Spotlight
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
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
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
In a decision that should make every patent litigator pause before filing for preliminary relief, the Federal Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction in FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, No. 2024-2335 after finding that the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that cancellation of a claim during prosecution may give rise to prosecution history estoppel, precluding the patentee from recapturing the surrendered subject...more
Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution....more
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes various key issues in patent litigation, including the role of applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), standing, and obviousness. Background - Shockwave Medical, Inc. (“Shockwave”)...more
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more
TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application...more
In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more
Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1864, -1940 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 14, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Cunningham....more
Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury...more
Insulet v EOFlow UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Ord_69078/2024) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has issued a significant decision that provides important guidance on the interpretation of patent claims in UPC...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more
Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2023-1428 (Fed. Cir. (D. Mass.) July 7, 2025). Opinion by Stark, joined by Prost and Taranto. Egenera owns a patent related to improved systems and methods for deploying and...more
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an...more
On July 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. affirming the district court’s finding that patent claims to a...more
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2025-1228, -1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025) Our Case of the Week focuses on obviousness. More particularly, the decision included a lengthy...more
In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation V. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2110, the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review decision on patentability when...more
On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...more
In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...more
EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more
The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed construction of the transitional claim phrase...more
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...more
IN RE KOSTIC - Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. When considering whether a reissue claim broadens the scope of the original patent, the PTAB determines the actual scope...more