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)
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
On July 24, 2025, the PTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied Amgen’s IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 challenging Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,856,320 (“the ’320 patent”) and...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
IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2025). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Reyna. IGT owns a patent related to secured virtual networks in gaming environments. After the patent application was...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, concluding that the Board’s decision to not apply...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Adhami, No. 2024-1218, 2025 WL 1949797 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2025)....more
On July 14, 2025 Fresenius filed two IPR petitions challenging Regeneron’s patents related to aflibercept. Regeneron has not asserted that Fresenius infringes either of these patents in district court litigation; however,...more
SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more
On July 18, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a revised practice for setting Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filing dates for post-grant proceedings. Effective immediately, the PTAB will issue Notices...more
On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “PTAB”) decision not to apply interference estoppel and, therefore, to institute an inter partes review...more
The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
IGT v. Zynga Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the reviewability and merits of the Patent Trial Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter...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
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced that, effective September 1, all PTAB hearings will be conducted in person at USPTO offices, marking a departure from the virtual and hybrid formats adopted in recent...more
Last month, we provided an overview of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) application of the “settled expectations” doctrine, articulated in recent PTAB director-level decisions. Interim Director Coke Morgan Stewart...more
Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1864, -1940 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 14, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Cunningham....more
In the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Acting Director has made substantial changes to the process for, and factors considered in, exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes...more
A recent notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) informed patent owners that “Starting September 1, 2025 all Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) hearings will be held in person.” (Emphasis added)....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as...more
As discretionary denials are on the rise and institution rates are declining at the PTAB (link), recent decisions from the PTAB have introduced the notion of a patent owner’s “settled expectations” as another reason for the...more
Insulet v EOFlow UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Ord_69078/2024) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has issued a significant decision that provides important guidance on the interpretation of patent claims in UPC...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more
Coke Morgan Stewart, the acting director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), exercised discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny Tessell’s (“Petitioner’s”) petition in favor of Nutanix (“Patent...more
One year has passed since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, which overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for determining design...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an...more
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) after applying the Fintiv factors, despite Petitioner’s...more