(Podcast) The Briefing - The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents: What It Means for Your Brand
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
Recognizing and Avoiding Trademark Scams and Hoaxes
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
Legal Alert: USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
Was the classic song “Over The Rainbow” plagiarized? How about a claim of copyright infringement against the script for “The Holdovers?” AI Legal strategies switch to claims of CMI removal
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions
The Briefing: The Patent Puzzle: USPTO's Guidelines for AI Inventions (Podcast)
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
8 Key Takeaways | The Presumption of Irreparable Harm After the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
On July 29, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick circulated a memorandum to Members of the PTAB entitled “Final Written Decision Procedures for AIA Trial Proceedings.” ...more
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
For the first time under the bifurcated institution procedures, the Acting Director reversed her own prior discretionary denial, citing changed circumstances based on a settlement in the parallel district court litigation. ...more
Challengers striving to beat higher-ranked opponents at the US Open tennis tournament happening now in New York are not the only challengers facing tricky new situations. Parties wishing to challenge the validity of US...more
Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more
In Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time an appeal from a derivation proceeding litigated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act (AIA)....more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review prompted by an infringement allegation in DexCom, Inc. v....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has undergone significant changes in how it evaluates patent challenges, creating both opportunities and obstacles for technology and life sciences companies....more
The Patent Office recently announced that it will begin enforcing a rule that requires that inter partes review (IPR) petitions “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed...more
On July 18, 2025, Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge for the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), announced that, absent good cause, the PTAB will issue a Notice of Filing Date Accorded within 14 days...more
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are a cost-effective way by which patent challengers can dispute the validity of an issued patent. To institute an IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must determine that the...more
Under Dickinson v. Zurko courts (specifically, the Federal Circuit) should defer to factual determinations by administrative agencies like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office unless they are not supported by substantial...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
On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more
In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based...more
On July 31, 2025, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Coke Morgan Stewart issued a memorandum indicating that the USPTO “will enforce and no longer waive the requirement of...more
On July 29, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiff Kannuu Pty, Ltd. (“Kannuu”) leave to amend its complaint to allege infringement of two newly-issued patents, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more
Key Takeaway: When facing a patent infringement suit, accused infringers traditionally turned to inter partes review (IPR) as a faster, more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. However, recent guidance...more
On July 31, 2025, the Acting Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant memorandum that alters the evidentiary landscape for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial 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
On 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR)...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
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 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