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?
The International Trade Commission (ITC) is an independent U.S. federal agency that oversees issues including IP enforcement, anti-dumping, and tariffs. A finding of infringement at the ITC can result in exclusion orders and...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
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the...more
Given the recent unanimous decision by a UK appellate court that Ericsson’s injunction efforts based on standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) were, essentially by their very nature, “hold-up” and “coercion” that violated...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
On March 5, the Federal Circuit held that sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution expenditures may count as “employment of labor or capital” for purposes of satisfying the economic domestic industry...more
For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...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
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
A recent opinion issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission in Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1370) serves as a reminder for sellers to be cautious with any...more
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission significantly alters the landscape for small companies seeking recourse against foreign infringers. The court...more
Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remain an efficient and powerful method for American businesses seeking relief from foreign acts of unfair competition, including infringement of...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
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) recently issued its first decision, in case UPC_CFI_239/2023, addressing infringement by equivalence. The patent in suit (EP2137782) was determined not to be infringed by the ‘literal’ scope of...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
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remains a pivotal forum for addressing intellectual property disputes under Section 337, particularly those involving design patents. Although the Commission issued no remedial...more
On December 19, 2024, FDA formally announced the end of the tirzepatide shortage in a Declaratory Order issued to Eli Lilly & Co. (“Lilly”). Lilly is tirzepatide’s patentholder and the manufacturer of the two branded versions...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
On January 8, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued a public version of the Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1380 brought by Complainant Nokia. While...more
Please join Fitch Even for a free webinar, “180 Days of UPC: How It Started… How It’s Going…,” on Wednesday, November 29, at 9:00 a.m. PST / 10:00 a.m. MST / 11:00 a.m. CST / 12 Noon EST. The Unified Patent Court (UPC)...more
Seven years after the Member States of the EU signed the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (“UPCA”), the Unitary Patent (“UP”) and the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) are likely to commence during the second half of 2022. This...more