United States: Patent

Subscribe
Intellectual property law and copyright law thought leadership, articles, podcasts, videos and webinars from expert sources across the legal world. Explore insights covering topics such as licensing and syndication, patent law, trade secrets and trademark law.
Article
Final Written Decision On IPR Filed Against Patent 11,874,910 B2 "Facial Recognition Authentication System Including Path Parameters" Denied For Improper Motivation To Combine Prior Art
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision denying an inter partes review petition against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition authentication patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate motivation to combine prior art references. The decision centered on whether perspective distortion techniques could be used to verify three-dimensionality in facial authentication systems, with the PTAB determining that the cited prior art did not teach the claimed verific
United States IP
OM
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
Article
What U.S. Patent Holders Need To Know About Inequitable Conduct Right Now
Patent applicants who intentionally misrepresent or withhold material information from the USPTO face severe consequences, including complete unenforceability of their patents. Recent Federal Circuit decisions demonstrate how courts apply the rigorous but-for materiality and specific intent standards established in Therasense, while confirming that inequitable conduct remains a powerful defense when intentional misconduct can be proven.
United States IP
CM
Crowell & Moring LLP
Article
“A One-Carbon Poison Pill”: Enanta v. Pfizer And The “Typo” That Lost A Priority Date
In a high-stakes patent dispute over Pfizer's blockbuster COVID drug Paxlovid, Enanta Pharmaceuticals discovered that a single carbon atom—allegedly a typographical error in their provisional patent application—stood between them and billions in potential damages. The case explores whether courts will rescue a patentee from its own written words when the difference between "C₁" and "C₂" means the difference between patent rights and public domain, raising fundamental questions about
United States IP
YMF Law Tokyo
Article
EPR Academy, Part 4 Of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, And Reissue
Ex parte reexamination (EPR) offers patent owners and challengers a unique combination of broad availability, flexible timing, and high grant rates that distinguish it from other USPTO post-grant proceedings. Understanding the strategic differences between EPR, inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and reissue proceedings is essential for maximizing leverage in patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation contexts.
United States IP
FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Article
No Office, No Problem? How Remote Work, Servers, And Kiosks Are Testing The Limits Of Patent Venue
Patent venue rules determine where companies can be sued for infringement, but remote work and modern technology have blurred the lines of what constitutes a "place of business." Courts now grapple with whether employee homes, data servers, retail kiosks, and third-party relationships create sufficient physical presence to establish proper venue under federal law.
United States IP
BB
Baker Botts LLP
Article
Practical Tips After U.S. Supreme Court’s Hikma v. Amarin Case
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. fundamentally reshapes the legal landscape for generic drug manufacturers pursuing skinny-label strategies under Section viii carve-outs. By rejecting the Federal Circuit's reader-focused approach and requiring affirmative, purposeful conduct to establish induced infringement, the Court provides substantial new protections while leaving critical questions about implicit inducement and commercial communications pr
United States IP
UT
Upadhye Tang
Article
Term Sheet, Real Deal: Delaware Court Signals Willingness To Specifically Enforce Technology License
The Delaware Court of Chancery examines whether a November 2023 term sheet constitutes a binding licensing agreement for emotion-recognition AI technology, and whether specific performance can compel transfer of intellectual property rights. Vice Chancellor Zurn signals inclination to enforce the agreement and grant the extraordinary remedy, raising critical questions about contracting for undeveloped AI technology and the enforceability of automatic IP transfer provisions.
United States IP
CW
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Article
D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026
Recent patent case orders from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts address critical issues in intellectual property litigation, including written description requirements for intravascular blood pump technology, anti-SLAPP statute applications in patent disputes, and the consequences of untimely claim construction arguments. These rulings provide important guidance on procedural timing, the scope of patent specifications, and the boundaries between petitioning activity and actionable c
United States IP
FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Article
Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al. (D. Mass 17-cv-12311).
A jury found that Abiomed's Impella intravascular pumps did not infringe Maquet's patent under the reverse doctrine of equivalents, despite meeting literal claim limitations, and determined the asserted patent claim was invalid for failing written description and enablement requirements. The case now awaits a judicial determination on whether assignor estoppel should preclude Abiomed from challenging the patent's validity.
United States IP
LA
Lando & Anastasi
Article
Federal Circuit Finds Jury Instructions In ED Texas Case “Erroneous” And “Improper”
The Federal Circuit issued several significant rulings addressing trade secret statute of limitations, patent eligibility under Section 101, jury instruction requirements, and the reviewability of IPR institution decisions. These precedential opinions establish important standards for when plaintiffs must file misappropriation claims, how abstract ideas are evaluated in agricultural technology patents, and proper procedures for patent infringement trials involving multiple patents.
United States IP
W
WilmerHale
See more