After 2007, the value of obtaining an opinion of counsel when confronted with claims of infringement reached a historical low.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has instituted a new procedure with the potential to change the patent landscape. The inter partes review (IPR) procedure took effect in September 2012.

On Oct. 12, 2014, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their Utilization entered into international force.

While the America Invents Act (AIA) permits amendments to claims during an inter partes review (IPR), attempts to amend claims have been largely unsuccessful to date.

Since the Inter Partes Review ("IPR") procedure under the A merica Invents Act ("AIA") became available in September 2012, the PTO has provided a new procedure to adjudicate the validity of a patent claim.

Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the International Trade Commission conducts investigations into allegations of certain unfair practices in import trade, including the infringement of certain statutory intellectual property rights.

On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first trademark opinion in 10 years, Hana Financial Inc. v. Hana Bank.

Partner Mark Selwyn contributed to the fifth edition of the American Bar Association's Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook. The book delves into every phase of patent infringement litigation...

The America Invents Act (AIA) instituted sweeping changes in U.S. patent law, including creating new proceedings for third parties to challenge an issued patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The author reviews a recent unusual PTAB scenario—the inter partes review petitioner successfully stopped an IPR proceeding, which the patent owner wanted to continue, before the board reached a trial-institution decision—and identifies reasons why petitioners may consider making the request.

In inter partes review proceedings, the Preliminary Response allows a patent owner to argue that an IPR proceeding should not be instituted.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l on June 19, 2014, there have been a surge of motions filed and granted that have invalidated patent claims for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This

The most recent Patent Trial and Appeals Board rule changes, effective May 2, 2016, allow petitioners to seek leave to file a reply to a patent owner preliminary response upon a showing of good cause.

The Federal Circuit sitting en banc recently held in Tam that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that "may disparage" persons, institutions, or beliefs, is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment on its face.

Connected technology products are a part of daily life. Connectivity standards – such as 5G and Wi-Fi – provide a common language that allows products from different manufacturers to communicate with each other.

One of Congress’s goals in enacting the America Invents Act was to reduce the high cost of litigation involving patents that are invalid.

When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings.

The author describes changes proposed by the PTO in rules governing the AIA-enabled post-grant proceedings and comments that the proposed changes would leave the proceedings intact.

A chapter authored by James H. Carter and Claudio Salas in The International Arbitration Review. Mr. Carter also served as the editor of this publication.

When the same patent claims are at issue in both a district court and an inter partes review, predicting how each forum’s claim constructions might affect the other’s is a key strategic question.