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?
On August 11, in Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v iFit, Inc., the Federal Circuit offered at least two observations that can benefit patentees seeking patent protection for inventions involving software. First, the court noted...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, holding that patent claims directed to abstract ideas and lacking inventive steps that transform...more
On June 11, in Yanbin Yu, Zhongxuan Zhang. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decision finding that a claim directed to an improved digital camera was patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision follows...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 deciding patent eligibility of computer-implemented claims, courts consider whether the claims merely implement a generic computer or whether they improve the functioning of the computer itself. The Federal Circuit...more
Few subjects have drawn as much interest among patent stakeholders and practitioners as understanding the framework used to determine a patent claim’s eligibility. Courts continue to address different factual situations in...more
As the 2018-2019 Supreme Court term nears its end, several consequential patent law petitions still await certiorari rulings before the Justices recess for the summer, while other patent cases are scheduled to be briefed and...more
With its Alice and Mayo opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed how patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is defined. ...more
As technologies advance, the Patent Office (as well as the Nation’s courts) must utilize Section 101 of the Patent Act to place reasonable limitations on patent eligibility to ensure that our patent system balances the...more
The Federal Circuit in a 2-1 decision upheld four software patents against a patent-eligibility challenge, finding that the patents do not claim an “abstract idea.” The decision, Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom Inc. et...more
Disavowal can occur when a patent holder disavows the full scope of claim terms in the specification or during prosecution (e.g., through the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel). In either event, disavowal requires...more
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court applied its two-part test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 – i.e., (1) whether the claims are drawn on a law of nature, natural phenomenon or abstract...more
On September 26, 2016, RPost Communications Limited (“RPost”) filed a brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), arguing that the district court did not have statutory authority...more
Over the past two months, the trends I've discussed in my previous blogs on AliceStorm have continued and become more entrenched. In particular, the Federal Circuit has been quite active, issuing nine decisions since late...more
Last year I christened the post-Alice impact on patents #Alicestorm, riffing on the hashtag #hellastorm used to refer to the Pineapple Express storms the drenched the Bay Area in December 2014. This year we have El Niño...more
Non-practicing entity (“NPE”) plaintiffs beware and NPE defendants be delighted: sanctions for objectively unreasonable claims and conduct are alive and well. Defendants in NPE litigations, particularly in the Eastern...more
Last year, then Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader referred to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) as a “death squad,” a view not shared by the PTAB. The focus of this blog is to look at the latest trends...more
Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases...more
In late July, the USPTO issued its July 2015 Update to the 2014 Interim Section 101 Patent Eligibility Guidance (IEG). The July 2015 Update addresses a number of the issues and concerns raised in the public comments to the...more