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 considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit...more
On October 18, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-1435, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26340, (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) addressing the propriety of conducting claim construction at...more
On October 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing claim construction at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. In UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18,...more
On October 18, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024), addressing, in relevant part, the propriety of claim construction at the Rule 12...more
In Hantz Software, LLC, v. Sage Intacct, Inc.1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate patents that are ineligible under...more
The Texas patent litigation monthly update for January 2023 summarizes one patent decision that issued from the Western District of Texas. This decision is one of the first Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss granted in a patent...more
Chief Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint alleging patent infringement because the claim-at-issue recites patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more
On March 15, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because the asserted patent claims were directed to process automation and therefore not eligible...more
There is a theme running through many patent-eligibility disputes that is analogous to baiting-and-switching. One party has claims that recite an invention. The other party characterizes those claims at a high level or...more
In recent years, District of Delaware Judges, including Judge Richard Andrews, have helped to manage the high volume of patent litigation cases by referring 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss to Magistrate Judges. Last week, in...more
Allegations of indirect patent infringement require, among other things, pleading that the defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent. It is not well-settled law, however, whether notice of a complaint itself satisfies...more
A district court in the Eastern District of Texas granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent is directed to credentialing...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-510-LPS (D.Del. March 25, 2021) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motions to...more
Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that...more
In Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2019-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020), the Federal Circuit clarified the venue analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which controls venue for patent...more
While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court of New Jersey - Summary: Venue in Hatch-Waxman cases is proper only in districts where actions...more
278-1. Federal Circuit Remands Patent Infringement Case to Answer Patent Ownership and License to Practice Questions - The Federal Circuit recently vacated a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent,...more
Our earlier Law360 guest article highlighted the rapid rise in prominence of the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas since U.S. District Judge Alan Albright was appointed to that court...more
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal because the claims directed to an interactive video game for learning to play guitar were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In its ruling, the court...more
A district court in Mississippi recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C § 101. The patent is directed to using a barcode to facilitate...more
In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more