5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Noteworthy Points in the Rules for the Implementation of China's Patent Law 2023
5 Key Takeaways | Best Practices in Patent Drafting: Addressing 112 and Enablement after Amgen
Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Never Surrender? Recapturing Subject Matter in Reissue Proceedings
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Enforcing IP in a Pandemic: Considerations, Risks, Strategies
PODCAST: Trending Now An IP Podcast - Patent Office Secrecy Orders
Life Sciences Quarterly (Q2 2019): Patent Litigation - Dos and Don'ts
2017 IP Developments
The Patent Prosecution Highway | Brinks Webinar
Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World
In October 2023, we reported on the district court decision in Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC. The decision was notable for reviving the prosecution laches doctrine to render unenforceable a continuation patent filed 13 years...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent...more
FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC - Before Moore, Chen, and Barnett. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The district court erred by construing a claim term based on disclosures made in a provisional application and...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
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
In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., 131 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the prosecution history of one patent in a patent family can limit the scope of claims in a different patent...more
Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more
Takeaways - -Intra-patent claim inconsistencies are errors correctible via reissue. -Subtle legal distinctions in reissue may require PTAB appeals. Patent prosecution errors occur. One such error that occurs is...more
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2275 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the doctrine of prosecution laches. Following a bench trial on the issue held shortly...more
In Hyatt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed “for the first time the PTO’s assertion of a prosecution laches defense in a civil action brought by a patentee under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain a patent.”...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Addressing for the first time whether the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) can assert prosecution laches as a defense in a civil action brought under 35 U.S.C. §145, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that targeted advertising is still an abstract idea and that a system providing targeted advertising must utilize something more than generic features and routine...more
It can be difficult to advance prosecution of a U.S. patent application efficiently and effectively after prosecution has been closed and an Advisory Action has been mailed. Various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)...more
BAXALTA INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. Before Moore, Plager, and Wallach. Appeal from the District of Delaware Summary: A district court erred by interpreting a specification’s description of an “antibody” as a definition,...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
The Federal Circuit held recently that the "all substantive rights" test, used heretofore to determine the identity of the "patentee" for purposes of satisfying 35 U.S.C. § 281, should be the standard for determining common...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more
Amgen, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC et al - Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: An examiner amendment may give rise to prosecution history...more
In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more
Sometimes appealing an Examiner’s rejection is the only practical option. If no claims of valuable scope have been allowed or indicated as allowable, and all clarifying claim amendments, supporting evidence and salient...more
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU - Before Wallach, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: If a proper reply to a final Office Action is not...more
In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO’s Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation that excluded prosecution that occurred after an interference was decided...more
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: A “wherein” clause can be limiting if it is material to...more
IRIDESCENT NETWORKS, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC - Before Prost, Reyna and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Iridescent sued AT&T and Ericsson for infringement of a patent...more