Swearing Behind: Overcoming Asserted Prior Art in PTAB Proceedings, Part 2
May 31, 2025
This two-part article discusses the various legal and evidentiary requirements for antedating and removing prior art that patent owners should consider when their pre-AIA patents are challenged based on a prior art publication or activity that is not otherwise subject to a statutory bar. Part One led off with a discussion of the legal requirements for antedating prior art by establishing an earlier invention via: 1) conception and diligent reduction to practice; and 2) actual reduction to practice. Part Two discusses the legal requirements for removing prior art that discloses an inventor’s own work and the evidentiary requirements for swearing behind prior art.
The Curious Persistence of the Six-Factor Trade Secret Test
April 30, 2025
This two-part article discusses the proof required for information to be considered a trade secret under U.S. statutory law, and includes detailed insight into the six-factor test outlined in the Restatement of Torts. Part One includes the evolving tests for determining a trade secret.
Beyond the Logo: How AI Complicates Trademark Protection In the Digital Age
April 30, 2025
Today, building brands solely on the promise of a different product or service has become unsustainable. Any “new and improved” feature or benefit is quickly eclipsed by competitors. Consequently, brands signal category superiority not through rational claims, but by reinforcing a distinct persona — a “ness” comprised of distinguishing traits and behaviors that form an ownable brand essence difficult for competitors to replicate.
Swearing Behind: Overcoming Asserted Prior Art in PTAB Proceedings
April 30, 2025
Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThis two-part article discusses the various legal and evidentiary requirements for antedating and removing prior art that patent owners should consider when their pre-AIA patents are challenged based on a prior art publication or activity that is not otherwise subject to a statutory bar. It also addresses considerations for petitioners to consider when developing their initial and ongoing invalidity strategies. Part One leads off with a discussion of the evidentiary requirements for proving earlier invention, conception and diligence and actual reduction in practice.
Patent Strategy Tips from Fed. Circ. 'Kroy v. Groupon' Ruling on Collateral Estoppel
April 30, 2025
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the usage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the court considered whether a finding of invalidity of claims by the PTAB at an inter partes review could be used to estop a patent holder from asserting patent infringement of different claims of the same patent in district court litigation.
Post-Amgen Patent Playbook: Section 112 Under the Microscope
April 30, 2025
The Supreme Court’s unanimous 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi reshaped enablement analysis for broad genus patent claims. In the wake of Amgen, broad functional claims have been scrutinized rigorously for sufficient disclosure. This article summarizes key post-Amgen decisions, which illustrate how patent drafters and litigators must navigate the fine line between claim breadth and disclosure depth in the post-Amgen era.
ChatGPT’s Ghibli-Style Images Are Testing Copyright Law
April 30, 2025
Last month, a flood of whimsical, dreamlike portraits in the style of Studio Ghibli (the Japanese animation studio) swept across social media. What began as a playful social trend quickly raised legal concerns. Within days, users began reporting that OpenAI had restricted prompts referencing specific artistic styles. This trend offers a live case study of how generative AI may implicate core doctrines of copyright law, including derivative works, substantial similarity, and fair use.
IP News
April 30, 2025
Federal Circuit Examines Written Description Requirements for U.S. Patent Application Publications Used as Prior Art Under Pre-AIAFederal Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction In a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act Case
Writing Strong Antibody Claims: Avoiding or Addressing USPTO Rejections for Written Description and Enablement
March 31, 2025
Many patent applicants currently face difficulty in obtaining antibody claims because of written description and enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The USPTO routinely rejects claims as too broad, arguing that such claims cover more antibodies than the specification discloses, or that undue experimentation would be needed to determine whether an antibody reads on the claims. These heightened disclosure requirements increase laboratory costs to generate sufficient data for a §112(a)-proof specification.
