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 a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more
Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A.,...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC. Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more
The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more
Biodelivery Sciences Intl. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (No. 2017-1265, -1266, -1268, 7/31/18) (Newman, Lourie, Reyna) - Newman, J. Remanding IPRs so the Board can consider non-instituted claims and grounds per the...more
On May 3, 2018, Nike sued Puma alleging infringement of seven utility patents related to its Flyknit, Air, and cleat assembly technologies1. In its complaint, Nike asserts that it has been “investing heavily in research,...more
Sneakers have been around for a very long time – at least since the late 1800’s. The first patent for a rubber heel for shoes was granted in 1899, and the first patent for “athletic shoes” issued in 1921, although it related...more