On July 9, 2016, the USPTO officially deployed its new e-filing and searching system called Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End.

On September 9, 2015 Scott Slavick's article, "Pour Me Another, Barman. Make it a Double-Take" was published on InsideCounsel.com.

On June 1, 2015 Trevor Copeland and Daniel Parrish's article, "International Design Patent Filing Considerations After U.S. Entry into the Hague Agreement," was published in The Intellectual Property Strategist.

First, all first-time agent designations now must be made through the electronic DMCA registration system.

On May 30, 2008, the Appellant David Couture filed a use-based service mark application for the mark PLAYDOM covering a variety of entertainment-related services.

Apple Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. for infringement of five U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 (the Analyzer Server patent), 8,046,721 (the Slide-to-Unlock patent), and 8,074,172 (the Autocorrect patent).

A refrain often repeated by courts, jurors and even litigants is that patent cases are too complex, confusing and long. One response to that criticism has been to streamline the case by dropping patents or claims before trial.

In so ruling, the Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in the case.

On January 22, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 12-1128, that a licensor bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of patent claim coverage over products that the licensor asserts fall within the scope of the license.

For patent seekers and patent attorneys alike, March 16, 2013 will be a momentous date.

On Thursday, June 12, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12-761, holding that competitors may bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

On December 15, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") published revised guidelines for USPTO personnel to use in evaluating subject matter eligibility of inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On December 17, 2015, an Eastern District of Texas Court ordered patent owner eDekka to pay attorney fees amounting to $390,829 to 23 defendants.

The Federal Circuit recently provided guidance on the role of institution decisions and differences in the scope of institution decisions and final written decisions.

On September 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit declined to review en banc a panel decision that a party challenging a patent in an IPR proceeding can present additional evidence of invalidity after a review is instituted

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the Board's conclusion that it would have been "common sense" for an ordinary artisan to supply the limitation missing from the prior art was not supported by substantial evidence.

On November 13, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its first final written decision under the new inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in Garmin International Inc. et. al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, case number IPR2012-00001, which also happens to be the first-filed IPR.

In LG Electronics, Inc. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., IPR2015-00196, Paper 20 (PTAB May 15, 2015) the Patent and Trials Appeal Board ("Board") reaffirmed that administrative proceedings such as an ITC investigation are treated differently from district court litigations, and as such the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to these actions.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the Federal Circuit's decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which grants patent plaintiffs...

The USPTO recently announced that the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) has been extended for another year and will now run through September 30, 2016.