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
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
On July 31, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart released a memo instructing the agency “that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other evidence that is not ‘prior art...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 31, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new memorandum announcing that it will begin enforcing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) that requires petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceeding to “specify...more
Acting Director of the USPTO, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a memorandum last week that will change the way petitioners levy challenges to patents via inter partes review (IPR). The change will apply to any petition for IPR...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, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum (“Memo”) announcing that the Office will renew enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“Rule 104(b)(4)”) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings....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
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
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
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
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
The PTAB has returned to a more flexible and discretionary approach to denying post-grant proceedings, reintroducing the Fintiv factors and adding new considerations such as settled expectations and USPTO workload. These...more
A set of recently issued memoranda by United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) officials has re-energized the debate around discretionary denials in post-grant trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)....more
CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...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
As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more
iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...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
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...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
On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...more