PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Who Owns AI Innovation? IP in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Money-Saving Licensing Tips for Startups
Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Unexpected Paths to IP Law with Dan Young and Colin White
How IP Can Fuel Your Startup's Growth
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
On August 11, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s ruling that all but one of the claims in PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PowerBlock Holdings,...more
On August 11, in Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v iFit, Inc., the Federal Circuit offered at least two observations that can benefit patentees seeking patent protection for inventions involving software. First, the court noted...more
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 2024-1177 (Fed. Cir. (D. Utah) Aug. 11, 2025). Opinion by Stoll, joined by Taranto and Scarsi (sitting by designation). PowerBlock sued iFit for infringement of a patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice...more
Modern electro-mechanical systems—ranging from humanoid robots and automated assembly lines, to smart workout equipment and medical devices—combine mechanical and electronic components to automate the performance of physical...more
On July 21, 2025, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL’s (together, “Teads”) Motion to Dismiss Yieldmo, Inc.’s (“Yieldmo”) Amended Complaint alleging that Teads...more
Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 22-1925 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) - Over a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court arguably made it easier to invalidate a patent for claiming nonpatentable abstract ideas when it...more
JUSTICE HÄAGEN-DAZS: Imagine King Tut lounging outside his pyramid, surrounded by gold and bad financial instincts. He's handing out chits left and right, "Good for one unit of gold, redeemable later." He's got an abacus guy...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., invalidating the patent claims at issue as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In what it noted was a case of...more
On April 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit brought by Recentive Analytics, Inc. against Fox Corporation. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that patents applying established machine learning methods to new data are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recentive Analytics, Inc....more
Over the last 15 years, the discussion over the types of subject matter that are considered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been mostly focused on the software and biological fields. Several years ago, the Federal...more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments from the Texas District Courts for the month of February 2025....more
The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...more
Earlier this month in Luxer Corp. v. Package Concierge, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that U.S. Patent No. 11,625,675 was ineligible under Section 101. In assessing the defendant's motion to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a determination by the US International Trade Commission regarding subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court concluded that the...more
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
On September 9, the Federal Circuit reversed a Northern District of California decision that invalidated two video camera patents as being directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Contour IP...more
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: When assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, combining two abstract ideas does not make...more
On September 9, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding by the District Court for the Northern District of California that point-of-view camera claims were ineligible. ...more
In the recent decision of Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17637 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2024), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under...more
On appeal from a motion to dismiss based on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a district court appropriately analyzed certain claims as representative claims and that the...more
Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Appeal No. 2022-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed the invalidity of all claims of two asserted patents as...more
On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the Alice/Mayo framework to assess whether claims directed to remote gambling were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and determined that the claims were directed to...more