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
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
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 decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...more
On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc.1 concerning the ongoing priority dispute relating to competing inventor groups for the CRISPR-Cas9 eukaryotic...more
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) revived the Regents of the University of California’s (Regents) challenge to the Broad Institute’s CRISPR-Cas9 patents, overturning a 2022 decision by...more
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Once the high threshold for lexicography is met, there must be a...more
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more
On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more
In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was...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
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did...more
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (Nos. 22-1594, 22-1653) addressing priority for disputed...more
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc., No. 2022-1594, 2025 WL 1363125 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) - On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals...more
The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) Must an inventor know their invention will work to demonstrate that they “conceived” of it? ...more
Those hoping the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would finally resolve priority in the long-pending dispute between the University of California and the Broad Institute will have to wait a little longer. Oral...more
Key Takeaway: A recent Ninth Circuit decision in C.R. Bard v. Atrium reinforces the long-standing Brulotte rule against post-expiration patent royalties but clarifies that courts should assess this strictly as a legal...more
In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a Jepson claim unpatentable where the specification did not provide adequate written description for the portion of the claim purporting to recite what was already well...more
On March 13, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., No. 23-2254 (Fed. Cir. 2025) that clarifies how patent term extension (PTE) is calculated for reissue...more
On March 13, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Xencor, Inc. (the Xencor decision). The Xencor decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel...more
IN RE: XENCOR, INC. Before Hughes, Stark, and Schroeder (sitting by designation). Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. To provide adequate written description for a Jepson claim,...more
In re: Xencor, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1870 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025) Our case of the week is an appeal from a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, concerning Xencor’s patent application...more
Sometimes important contributions to innovation can come from the mundane rather than the extraordinary. One (perhaps apocryphal) example comes from the story of the early development of television by Philo Farnsworth (the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting claims of a patent application directed to a dosing regimen for a cancer treatment, finding the claims to be obvious where the...more
Late last year we reported on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision holding that certain device patents should not have been listed in the FDA’s Orange Book since the claims of the patents in...more
Amarin sells the drug icosapent ethyl under the brand name Vascepa. Vascepa is approved by the FDA for two indications: (i) to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition characterized by blood triglyceride levels greater...more