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 EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial on damages because EcoFactor’s expert’s opinion was unreliable under Fed....more
On May 21, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed a $20 million damages award against Google LLC in a patent infringement dispute with EcoFactor, Inc. EcoFactor, Inc. v....more
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, highlighting the critical gatekeeping role of district courts under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards,...more
In an en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a damages expert that a lump-sum...more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) In its first en banc decision of the year, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s admission of expert testimony concerning damages,...more
Last week, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued its first en banc decision in a utility patent case in several years. The case involves the gatekeeping function of district courts vis-à-vis expert...more
The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
As patent practitioners know, Daubert motions can be some of the most hotly contested and pivotal motions in the life of a patent case. These motions are used to exclude testimony from an opponent's expert witness, usually on...more
This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on...more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting by designation in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, excluded a plaintiff’s damages expert opinion because the evidence relied upon by the expert was unreliable and therefore...more
Having heard oral argument at a hearing held on Monday, May 18th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently entered its decision on these motions in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del. October 25, 2018), the Court denied Power Integration’s Motion to...more
Addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on damages issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony based on a fact-intensive analysis that was not...more
Stark, C. J. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants' Technical Expert Glenn Reinman is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Jeremiah Grant is denied in part and...more