Contributor Page
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
 
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 312 474 6300
Fax: +1 312 474 0448
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago
IL 60606-6357
United States
By Jeremy R. Kriegel, Kwanwoo Lee
Next trip to the grocery store, stop in the canned soup aisle and take a closer look at how the canned soups are displayed on the shelves.
By Marshall Gerstein
In Altaire Pharm., Inc. v. Paragon Biotek, Inc., Case No. 2017-1487 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed in part a PGR final written decision that upheld the patentability of challenged claims, ...
By Kate Nuehring Su
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Sirona Dental Systems GMBH v. Institut Straumann AG, Appeals 2017-1341, 2017-1403 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2018) tasked the PTAB with reconciling the Supreme Court's SAS Institute decision ...
By Sandip H. Patel
Those businesses must therefore more carefully consider the consequences of their domestic behavior.
By Ryan Schermerhorn
Those twenty-five IPR petitions led to the six IPR proceedings at issue here.
By Jennifer Burnette
In Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that disclosure of a species provides written descriptive support for a claimed genus where the invention was in a predicable field of art, ...
By William K. Merkel
In Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Nos. 2016-2707, 2016-2708 (Fed. Cir. April 13, 2018), the court held that claims to methods of treatment were patent eligible.
By Julianne Hartzell
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision that a video demonstration and slides distributed by Petitioner Medtronic at three industry meetings and conferences were not publicly accessible and, thus, were not "printed publications."
By Ryan Phelan
On June 7, 2018, the Federal Circuit in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. requested that intervenor, Patent Office director Andrei Iancu, and appellee Broadcom, file a response to Wi-Fi...
By Sandip H. Patel
Left in the wake of the Supreme Court's SAS decision (discussed here) are a number of appeals pending before the Federal Circuit concerning Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions...
By Michael Weiner
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.
By Julie M. Watson, Pamela L. Cox
Updated Bayh-Dole Act regulations are effective today (May 14, 2018). Here are the key steps federal funding recipients will want to take to comply with the new rule and those licensing federally funded technology will want to know.
By Julianne Hartzell
The Supreme Court held on April 24, 2018 that if the Patent Office institutes and IPR proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner.
By Sandip H. Patel
The Patent Office today issued a press release of its notice of proposed rulemaking that would replace the broadest reasonable interpretation standard the Patent Trial and Appeal Board applies...
By Matthew R. Carey
In MaxLinear Inc. v. CF Crespe LLC the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB did not address arguments concerning patentability of certain dependent claims of the patent ...