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
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
In January 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a broad set of fee increases and structural adjustments intended to address rising operational costs and encourage more efficient patent...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the upcoming launch of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered image-based prior-art search tool for design patents, scheduled to go live on October 1, 2025 (fiscal...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
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...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
On July 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. affirming the district court’s finding that patent claims to a...more
On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...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
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a...more
As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more
On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned...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
Cell and gene therapies represent a transformative frontier in modern medicine, offering potential cures for previously untreatable conditions. However, securing intellectual property (IP) protection for these innovations...more
Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more
The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more
The proliferation of artificial intelligence (“AI”) presents complex challenges for intellectual property, especially within patent law. In particular, the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be susceptible to...more
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...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
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
Kilpatrick’s Justin Krieger and Karam J. Saab recently presented at the “23rd Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Law Institute” in Westminster, Colorado. This two-day event brings together thought...more