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
A recent memo from the acting director of the US Patent and Trademark Office directs the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject inter partes review (IPR) petitions that use “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert...more
On December 6, 2024, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed three separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 (“the ’438 Patent”), which is assigned to Entropic Communications,...more
In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v. Ceracon GmbH, Mannheim Local Division, June 6, 2025 (UPC_CFI_745/2024) The UPC has recently clarified its strict approach to amending counterclaims for revocation in patent litigation....more
Imagine this. You were just served with a Complaint for patent infringement and learn that, some years ago, your competitor was granted a patent giving them a legal monopoly to exclude others, including you, from making,...more
We have covered the LKQ v. GM design patent disputes from the PTAB decision through appeal and en banc rehearing. And now we report on yet another chapter in the saga between these parties....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of a Janssen patent, finding that Teva did not meet its burden to prove obviousness. In so doing, the Federal Circuit provided...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that held for the first time that principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, aligning design patent law more closely with...more
On June 30, 2025, Perceptix filed suit against Meta Platforms for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,498,439, which describes a headphone that turns on when it is worn. The ‘439 Patent is assigned to the Electronics and...more
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2025-1228, -1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025) Our Case of the Week focuses on obviousness. More particularly, the decision included a lengthy...more
A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more
Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more
When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408 Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more
Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more
Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Mitek Systems Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Appeal No. 2023-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the limits of declaratory judgment jurisdiction for a...more
Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more
Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) In its first en banc decision of the year, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s admission of expert testimony concerning damages,...more
Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more
In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more