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 estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
Cooley’s Michael Berkovits says lawyers working on an intellectual property dispute should consult closely with forensic analysts and treat their findings as an investigative tool. Computer forensic analysis has become a...more
In a pivotal ruling for patent damages and standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated a $300 million award against Apple in a long-standing dispute with Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. See Optis...more
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
Evidence is a key battleground in virtually all patent litigation cases. As a Court designed to combine the best and most efficient features of the main EU national patent litigation systems, the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”)...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment grant based on an equitable estoppel defense, finding that the accused infringer failed to show that the patent owner’s silence or...more
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit en banc banished the notion that the reliability of an expert’s methodology under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) is a question of weight, not admissibility. The en banc Court...more
In the first en banc decision for a utility patent case since 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC and held that EcoFactor's damages expert's...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
On May 21, in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc ruling in which the court remanded the case for a new trial on damages. In so doing, the Federal Circuit emphasized the role of the court in...more
Admissibility standards for patent damages experts has come under scrutiny. Previously, we highlighted the EcoFactor v. Google case regarding Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the admissibility of EcoFactor’s...more
The Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in EcoFactor v. Google, which provides further clarity on the admissibility standards for damages experts under Rule 702. This decision reverses the original panel’s...more
In July 2024, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) clarified its procedural rules surrounding evidence preservation and confidentiality. It confirmed that the deadline for bringing an action on the merits only starts to run after...more
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
In Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon, The Federal Circuit issued a decision that should come as a comfort to patent owners, addressing the interplay between decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in inter partes...more
For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for...more
ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. Before Hughes, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board - A party in a PTAB proceeding forfeits the ability to challenge an opposing party’s discovery obligation violation...more
In CQV Co. Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) the interaction of indemnification agreements with Article III standing for appeals of post-grant review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more
On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more
On February 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences’s (“Parse”) motions for summary judgment that: (i) Parse had never actually conducted any direct or...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
The Federal Circuit rarely decides cases en banc. For example, in 2024, the Court only heard one en banc case. Stunningly, on September 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case...more