In an article published in the September issue of Medical Design Briefs, partner Daniel T. Chavka discusses how the patent landscape can guide medical device innovation.

Attempting to "swear behind" an alleged prior art reference has been common practice in IPRs, going back to the first IPR, Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001 (PTAB 2013), aff'd sub nom.

In an article published in Managing Intellectual Property on November 8, 2019, Partner and Chair, IP Litigation Benjamin Horton is quoted discussing the implications of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew ...

Adidas successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2012 to review a Nike shoe patent. During that review, Nike filed a motion to...

As previously discussed in our post covering the state of IPR estoppel, initial district court decisions have varied regarding the scope of IPR estoppel applied to ground for invalidity not raised in a petition...

On January 6, 2022 the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) announced a new pilot program that will allow patent applicants to delay responding to Office Actions that include issues of subject matter eligibility (SME) under 35 USC § 101/Alice.

In an article published in Intellectual Property Magazine online on April 28, 2020 and in the May 2020 issue, Partner Ryan Phelan discusses the data privacy law and IP considerations

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released a comprehensive AI strategy emphasizing the responsible use of artificial intelligence by both its workforce and those seeking patent or trademark protection.

In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussed here), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB was using an overly-broad standard for CBM eligibility.

The PTAB recently hosted a Boardside Chat webinar on the topic of hearsay and authentication before the Board. The Administrative Patent Judges that presented were Michael Zecher, Tom Giannetti and Grace Obermann.

Despite disagreeing with the PTAB's preferred claim construction, the Federal Circuit in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, nevertheless determined that the PTAB had correctly canceled the challenged claims.

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Chudik, Appeal 2016-2673 offers patent practitioners a cautionary tale and good teaching points about the propriety of negative limitations and functional claim language.

In his petition for certiorari, Stephen Thaler had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit decision in which the court ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) could not be listed as the sole inventor.

On January 25, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) updated its web page with a section titled "The JPO Key Features" (see https://lnkd.in/d9XqGYGm).

The court did not mention the date Supernus received the opposition, but determined Supernus did not act diligently after the Notice of Opposition.

In an unusual fact situation, Judge Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that estoppel stemming ...

In AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May. 13, 2019), the Federal Circuit determined that a manufacturer did not have standing to appeal an adverse decision

On July 2, 2020, the Patent Office initiated the "Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program," which it designed to reduce the pendency of ex parte appeals.

Exploding interest in artificial intelligence has sparked a wave of innovation, leading companies to develop a host of new products and technologies. Some 300 distinct GenAI patent families have been filed.

In an article published in World Intellectual Property Review on December 24, Ryan Phelan discusses the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's...