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
Obvious-type double patenting (ODP) has historically served as a tool to prevent patent owners from extending exclusivity beyond the statutory allowed patent term and to tie patent families together during sale. Historically,...more
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more
After eight weeks of shifts in governmental policies, the patent bar is feeling repercussions from all directions. One critical area in flux is the post-grant challenge arena. With a reduced PTAB head count and a steady...more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more
According to recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office) data, the Office receives a burdensome number (13%) of information disclosure statements (IDSs) having in excess of 50 total items of information. 89 Fed. Reg....more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
Ex parte reexamination proceedings have been available for over 40 years. The reexamination statutes, Public Law 96-517 of July 1, 1981 (also known as the Bayh-Dole Act), included 35 U.S.C. § 303, which codified, in part,...more
Takeaways: -A requester can have a voice in ex parte reexamination prosecution. - Requesters should strategically structure their request documents to hedge against potential patent owner amendment and argument. The...more
A significant procedure for patent owners, Supplemental Examination, was established in the 2012 America Invents Act when Congress determined there should be a proceeding to turn events that in the past could lead to...more
The recent resurgence in ex parte reexamination demonstrates the importance of this post-grant review vehicle. It has become particularly important for patent challengers who may be estopped from requesting inter partes...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
This Year in Review synthesizes key events and decisions from 2023 into a digestible guide that we hope will serve as a helpful reference for those who practice before, or adjacent to, the PTAB. As in the past, many of our...more
This case addresses how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Background - Cellect sued Samsung Electronics, Co. for infringement of four patents. Subsequently, Samsung...more
Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
In decisions rare of their kind, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) terminated two ex parte reexaminations in view of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by a different party. The decisions represent...more
Steep Drop in Discretionary Denials — But Will It Last? The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be becoming more petitioner-friendly following a June 2022 memorandum that significantly narrows a precedent-setting...more
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) terminated a pending ex parte reexamination after finding that the challenger was estopped because the prior art references could have been raised in a prior inter partes review (IPR)....more
On November 16, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) vacated a reexamination proceeding because the patent challenger relied on unpatentability grounds that reasonably could have been raised in an...more
The USPTO is extending their pro bono efforts to allow those establishing a need to retain voluntary pro bono ex parte examination appeal counsel and eventually pro bono counsel for all proceedings conducted at the Board....more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more