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?
Legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence - - The TTAB, applying the Milwaukee test, rejected an application for a dark green colour mark for medical gloves on the ground that it was generic - The Federal Circuit...more
Xsys Italia v. Esko-Graphics ORD_23545/2025 - The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has delivered a decision clarifying the temporal scope of the UPC’s jurisdiction over European patent infringement...more
REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. ITC - Before Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of non-final determinations from...more
Last month the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the Lashify case that significantly broadens the opportunity for companies to bring a lawsuit before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC is known for...more
Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Before: Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from ITC Investigation. The Federal Circuit expands the economic prong of the domestic-industry analysis to include domestic spending on...more
Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision,...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
In Lashify v. ITC, the Federal Circuit held that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, which is a precondition for obtaining International Trade Commission Section 337 relief, can be satisfied with...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has taken an axe to years of precedent in § 1337 investigations at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has long denied “mere importers” the protection of §...more
For decades, the ITC’s jurisdictional requirement – known as the domestic industry requirement – effectively shut out innovators from availing themselves of the powerful remedies of the forum, in the form of an exclusion...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
On Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Wuhan Healthgen Biotech. Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1389, 2025 WL 420819 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief...more
Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Amgen (UPC_Coa-405/2024) and Alexion Pharmaceuticals v Samsung Bioepis NL BV (UPC_CoA-402/2024); December 20, 2024. The UPC Court of Appeal has confirmed a strict approach to correcting erroneous...more
A US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, and Raymond Chen recently heard oral argument in Lashify, Inc. v. US International Trade Commission, an appeal from a...more
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance of the Patent Office’s rulemaking and enforcement. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) The Federal Circuit’s...more