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 Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 25-1228, The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a dosing regimen with unequal loading doses were not obvious and that a presumption of...more
Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution....more
On July 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million jury verdict in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, No. 2023-2153, finding that Colibri’s infringement claim under...more
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more
On July 18, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court ruling in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentees’ doctrine...more
Prosecution history estoppel typically arises when a claim is rejected during prosecution and is then amended (narrowed) to overcome the rejection. However, in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, No....more
In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more
The doctrine of equivalents (DOE), a creation of the Supreme Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. v. Linde Air Products (1950), is balanced by the concept of prosecution history estoppel (PHE), the contours of which were delineated...more
In the last week, Amgen, Inc and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd, LLC (“Amgen”) filed three more BPCIA complaints against companies seeking approval for a denosumab biosimilar. ...more
In Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation, the Federal Circuit addressed the boundaries a district court may impose on experts by deeming their testimony wrong as a matter of law. Background - Steuben Foods...more
Simbrinza® (brinzolamide / brimonidine) - Case Name: Alcon Inc. v. Padagis Israel Pharms. Ltd., Civ. No. 22-1422-WCB, 2025 WL 457119 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2025) (Bryson, C.J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Simbrinza®...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more
Conflicting expert testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the jury’s rejection of a reverse doctrine of equivalents argument....more
On January 24, in Steuben Foods, Inc v. Shibuya Hoppman Corporation, the Federal Circuit found that Steuben had made a compelling argument that the common law Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents (RDOE) did not survive the 1952...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the “substantially the same way” comparison in connection with a doctrine of equivalents (DOE) analysis involving a means-plus-function claim limitation should focus...more
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppman Corp., Appeal No. 2023-1790 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit addressed an “anachronistic exception, long mentioned but...more
Addressing for the first time the issue of whether bioequivalence data and in vitro testing can show that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) product with different immediate and delayed release portions infringed on a...more
The doctrine of equivalents is a staple patent law principle, addressing the tension between providing fair protection to innovative ideas and ensuring legal certainty for third parties. However, like most patent laws, the...more
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1600, -1709 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Federal...more
On October 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Nexstep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, affirming the District Court for the District of Delaware’s judgment of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113, 10/24/2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) - Chen, J. The Court affirmed the...more
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson AB, Ericsson, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et. al., Appeal No. 2024-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarified that, for an...more
In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, the Federal Circuit expanded the preclusive effect of non-infringement rulings. It ruled that prior judgments of non-infringement can prevent follow-on lawsuits involving...more
In a joint appeal of two adverse decisions from the District Court, the Federal Circuit on procedural grounds rejected an appeal from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation...more