著書・論文

_

• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  A Claim term referring to an antecedent using “said” or “the” cannot be independent from the antecedent
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  CAFC splits the difference between VLSI and Intel on Claim Construction
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  No Shapeshifting Claims Through Argument in an IPR
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Mere Automation of Manual Processes Using Generic Computers Does Not Constitute a Patentable Improvement in Computer Technology
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Throwing in Kitchen Sink on 101 Legal Arguments Didn’t Help Save Patent from Alice Ax
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Recapture Applies under 35 U.S.C. 101
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Artificial Intelligence Systems Cannot be Inventors on a Patent Application
• Fumika  Ogawa  –  Detecting Natural Phenomena Using Conventional Techniques Found “Directed to” Natural Phenomena at Alice/Mayo Step One
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  When does the absence of evidence turn into evidence of absence? The CAFC vacate their prior decision to now hold that there must be evidence that a skilled artisan would understand silence regarding a limitation to necessarily exclude said limitation.
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  CAFC HOLDS THAT A SIMPLE ERROR IS STILL SIMPLE EVEN IF IT IS HARD TO FIND
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  General Industry Skepticism May Not be Sufficient by Itself to Preclude a Finding of Motivation to Combine
• The applicants' statement during the prosecution may play a critical role for claim construction
• Bo  Xiao  –  Transactions Without Primary Experimental-Use Purpose Do Not Insulate From The On-Sale Bar
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Primer in Patent Enforcement
• Fumika  Ogawa  –  Insufficient Extrinsic Evidence and Prosecution Disclaimer Led to Claim Construction in Patentee’s Favor
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Claim differentiation helps broaden the scope of a claim to a Fuse end cap
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Apple Makes Rotten Convincing that the PTAB Cannot Construe Claims Properly
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Got A Lot To Say? Unfortunately, CAFC Affirm A Word Limit Will Not Prevent Estoppel Under 35 USC §315(e)(1)
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Forum Selection Clause Can Prevent IPR Fights
• Broadcom Wi-Fi chips, and Apple smartphones, tablets and computers held responsible for patent infringements
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  Exclusion of IPR Forum Selection Clause
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Winning on Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness in an IPR
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Breathe Easier, the CAFC Provides Guidance on Construing the Claimed Concentration of a Stabilizer in Patents for an Asthma Drug
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Reasonable-Expectation-of-Success Requirement Cannot be Satisfied When There is No Expectation of Success
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  101 Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  103 条⾃明性における「後知恵」(Hindsight)について
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Lets’ B. Cereus, no reasonable fact finder could find an expectation of success based on the teachings of a prior art reference that failed to achieve that which the inventor succeeds
• Prosecution History Disclaimer Dooms Infringement Case for Patentee
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Design Claim is Limited to an Article of Manufacture Identified in the Claim
• Authentication method held patent-eligible at Alice Step Two
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Prosecution Refreshers – Incorporating Foreign Priority Application by Reference, Translations, Means-Plus-Function
• Bo  Xiao  –  Claims Should Provide Sufficient Specificity To Improve The Underlying Technology
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Patent Claims Cannot be Construed One Way for Eligibility and Another Way for Infringement
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Claim Construction – When The Meaning Is Clear From Intrinsic Evidence, There Is No Reason To Resort To Extrinsic Evidence
• Miki  Motohashi  –  Anything Under §101 Can be Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  A small increase in a Prior Art’s taught range needs to have sufficient reason for the modification to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Note Quite Game Over as Bot M8 Receive a 1-Up from the CAFC
• The “inferior” Board: Supreme Court preserves the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but empowers the PTO Director with final decision-making authority over Board proceedings
• Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer Ensures that Claims are not Construed One Way to Get Allowance and in a Different Way to Against Accused Infringers
• Revisiting KSR: "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."
• No likelihood of confusion with the mark BLUE INDUSTRY and opposer’s numerous marks having INDUSTRY as an element
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Making DJ Jurisdiction Easier to Maintain
• Bo  Xiao  –  Tailored Advertising Claims Are Invalidated Due to Lack of Improvements to Computer Functionality
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Inventors’ Agreements will not protect a former employer from the inventors’ future related work
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  An Improvement in Computational Accuracy is Not a Technological Improvement
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  If it cannot be made, it does not exist!
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Understanding Standing in an IPR
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Sanding for a Substituted Party is Not a Crock
• Miki  Motohashi  –  Who has Standing to Appeal of IPR Decision? And What is Teaching Away?
• Broad functional limitations in claims “raise the bar for enablement”
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The PTAB’s IPR Institution Decision is Final and Nonappealable
• Claim construction of a non-functional term in an apparatus claim; proof of vitiation against infringement under the doctrine of equivalents
• Trademark licensing agreements are not distinguishable from other types of contracts – the contracting parties are generally held to the terms for which they bargained
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Quality and Quantity of Specification Support in Determining Patent Eligibility
• Bo  Xiao  –  Make Sure Patent Claims Do Not Contain an Impossibility
• Bo  Xiao  –  Claims are Viewed and Understood in the Context of the Specification and the Prosecution History
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Sorry Doc, no Patent Term Adjustment under the C-delay Provision!
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Motion detection system found to be ineligible patent subject matter
• “Kitchen” Sinks QuikTrip’s Trademark Opposition: The Federal Circuit Explains that Although Trademarks are Evaluated in their Entireties, when Determining Similarities between Trademarks, More Weight Is Applied to Distinctive Aspects of the Trademarks
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi, マイケル・  カリディ, マイケル・  カリディ  –  Federal Circuit Restricts Ranges for lack of Written Description
• District court’s construction of a toothbrush claim gets flossed
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  All Patentability Arguments Should Be Presented to the PTAB Prior to an Appeal to the CAFC
• New evidence submitted with a reply in IPR institution proceedings
• Box designs for dispensing wires and cables affirmed as functional, not registrable as trade dresses
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Today’s Problems with §101 and the Latest Federal Circuit Spin in American Axle v. Neapco
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Printed Matter Challenge to Patent Eligiblity
• Bo  Xiao  –  Dependent Claims Cannot Broaden an Independent Claim from Which They Depend
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  What Does It Mean To Be Human?
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  CRITICALITY OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has discretion in issuing sanctions and is not limited by the Sanctions Regulations under Rule 42.12
• The Federal Circuit Holds that an “Agreement to Agree” to License Does Not Establish an Enforceable License Right
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Licensing Agreements and Testimonies Could be Used as Evidence of Secondary Considerations to Overcome Obviousness Only When They Provide a “Nexus” to the Patents
• Prosecution history estoppel applies to narrowing amendment for a purpose, but not for all purposes
• Be careful in translating foreign applications into English, particularly with respect to uncommon terms
• In a patent infringement action involving standard essential patents, standard-essentiality is to be determined by judges in bench trials and juries in jury trials
• Proprietary interest is not required in seeking cancellation of a trademark registration
• Bo  Xiao  –  PTAB Should Provide Adequate Reasoning and Evidence in Its Decision and Teaching Away Argument Requires More Than a General Preference
• Same difference: A broad interpretation of “contrast” renders patented design obvious in view of prior art showing a similar “level of contrast”
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Full Federal Circuit Continues 101 Spin on Driveshaft Eligibility
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Walking Dead Patent Claims in an IPR
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  CAFC Remands Back To PTAB Instructing Them To Conduct The Analysis And Correct The Mistakes In Wearable Technology IPR Case
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  CAFC Finds Claim Limitations Missing in the Prior Art May Still Be Obvious with Common Sense
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Nexus for Secondary Considerations requires Coextensiveness between a product and the claimed invention
• Federal Circuit Reverses the District Court’s Award of Attorneys’ Fees Due to the District Court’s Failure to Provide a Clear Explanation of the Supporting Reasons
• A Pencil Copying A Pencil Copying A Pencil: Patented Design Intentionally Resembling A No. 2 Pencil Not Infringed by Copycat
• The disclosure-dedication doctrine applies at limitation level, not at embodiment level
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Petition Denied: AI Machine Cannot be Listed as an Inventor
• Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. §156 is Limited to the FDA-Approved Active Ingredient and Salts or Esters thereof—but not Metabolites or Compounds Sharing an Active Moiety
• The Federal Circuit declined to be bound by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance by the Patent Office, but affirmed the Board's conclusion of the ineligibility, which relied on the Guidance
• When there is competing evidence as to whether a prior art reference is a proper primary reference, an invalidity decision cannot be made as a matter of law at summary judgment
• Bo  Xiao  –  A Patent Claim Is Not Indefinite If the Patent Informs the Relevant Skilled Artisan about the Invention’s Scope with Reasonable Certainty
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  For Biotech, “Method of Preparation” Claims May Survive §101
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  FACEBOOK’s IPRs Can’t Friend Each Other
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  When the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) Becomes Unreasonable
• Miki  Motohashi  –  米国商標法と合衆国憲法修正１条，イアンク（米国特許商標庁）対ブルネッティ米国連邦最高裁判所判決　日本大学知財ジャーナル Vol.13 2020.3
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Post-Importation Activity can be used by the International Trade Commission for determining a violation of Section 337
• To Collect Damages for Patent Infringement, a Patentee Must Affirmatively Provide (1) Constructive Notice by Marking Products or b) Actual Notice to the Accused Infringer
• Should’ve, Could’ve, Would’ve; Hindsight is as common as CDMA, allegedly!
• What role does inherency have in an obviousness analysis?
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  General Knowledge of a Skilled Artisan Could be Used to Supply a Missing Claim Limitation from the Prior Art with Expert Evidence in the Obviousness Analysis
• A Claimed Range May be Anticipated and/or Obviousness When the Lower Limit of the Range of the Reference Abuts the Upper limit of the Disputed Claim Range
• One correct way of reciting a Markush group in the claim
• Post-filing examples, even if made by different method than prior art, may be relied upon to show inherency, particularly if patent owner fails to show that inherent feature is absent in prior art
• Disavowal - Construing an element in a patent claim to require what is not recited in the claim but is described in an embodiment of the specification
• The United States Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover salaries of its lawyers and paralegals in civil actions brought under 35 U.S.C. §145
• Heightened “original patent” written description standard applies for reissue patents
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Preamble Reciting a Travel Trailer is a Structural Limitation - Avoiding Assertions of Intended Use
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Is a claim limitation functional or merely an intended use?
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Definitely Consisting Essentially Of: Basic and Novel Properties Must Be Definite Under 35 U.S.C. §112
• Presenting multiple arguments in prosecution risks prosecution history estoppel on each of them
• The CAFC’s Holding that Claims are Directed to a Natural Law of Vibration and, thus, Ineligible Highlights the Shaky Nature of 35 U.S.C. 101 Evaluations
• What’s a tool? What is functionality? Network monitoring claim held patent-eligible in split opinion
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  The limitations of a “wherein” clause
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  When Figures in a Design Patent Do Not Clearly Show an Article of Manufacture for the Ornamental Design, the Title and Claim Language Can Limit the Scope of the Design Patent
• A Good Fry: Patent on Oil Quality Sensing Technology for Deep Fryers Survives Inter Partes Review
• A Change in Language from IPR Petition to Written Decision May Not Result in A Change in Theory of Motivation to Combine
• Examples and procedures in the specification may provide necessary objective boundaries for a term of degree in the claims
• No obviousness where hindsight argument relied upon “cherry-picked” data
• Don’t raise issues for the first time before the CAFC unless it falls into one of the limited exceptions: the CAFC affirms the stylized letter “H” mark to be confusingly similar
• Arguments of "as a whole", "high level of abstraction," "novelty/nonobviousness," "physicality" and "machine-or-transformation test" for subject matter eligibility were successful at the PTAB and the district court, but not at the Federal Circuit
• “Built Tough”: Ford’s Design Patents Survive Creative Attacks by Accused Infringers
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Predictability and Criticality – Disclosure of Species Can Support Broader Genus
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Plausible and specific factual allegations of inventive claims are enough to survive a motion to dismiss for Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
• The Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Obvious Determination Against German-Based Non-Practicing Entity, Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., Based on Both Issue Preclusion and Lack of Merit
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  There is a Standing to Defend Your Expired Patent Even If an Infringement Suit Has Been Settled
• Satisfying Written Description When Therapeutic Effectiveness is Claimed
• A treatment method including an administering step based on discovery of a natural law is patentable eligible
• Absent information essential for customers to make a purchasing decision, a webpage specimen is not an acceptable display associated with the goods, but a mere advertisement
• More Diagnostic Patent Claims Fall—Despite following USPTO Guidelines
• A comparison of an accused product to a commercial product that meets all the claim limitations for finding infringement of the claim
• A case for importing limitation from specification into the claim
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Claims to a Dietary Supplement Survive a Motion to Dismiss on a § 101 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Challenge
• Prior Art Based on Inherency Does Not Extend to “Probably” Existing Subject Matter, but Is Limited to “Necessarily” Existing Subject Matter.
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  A Patent of Few Words and a Defendant with a Few Parts cannot avoid a Trier of Fact
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Creative Strategies of Attack
• It All Begins with Claim Construction
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Applicant should carefully review the PTO’s PTA especially when applicant filed corresponding applications in foreign patent offices
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Key Practical Effects From the 2019 PEG
• More than the mere look of a compound is required to establish obviousness
• Issuance date or expiration date as the reference point for obviousness-type double patenting?
• Surnames are registrable on Principal Register with sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness
• In widely watched biotech case, skepticism by others in the art and other factors give rise to a lack of a reasonable expectation of success, and thus a lack of interference-in-fact
• To narrow, or not to narrow a claim without lexicography or disavowal in a patent specification: the U.S. Supreme Court is asked to answer the question.
• Foreign manufacturer’s intent to induce infringement in the U.S. inferred from large worldwide market share
• A Tale of Two Printed Publications
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Spreadsheet Tabs Survive Alice Test of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  The Patent-Ineligibility trend continues to be infectious…
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Non-Prior Art Evidence Helps Sink Three Patents in IPR Proceeding
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  NAI torpedoes own patent with faulty §120 priority
• Parker Vision on Functional Claim Limitations
• Whose Burden Is It?
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The Public Use Bar May Not Be Triggered Even If the Invention Is Tested Publicly Prior To the Critical Date
• A claimed rule feature may not be anticipated and/or rendered obvious merely because the rule is satisfied by chance in a reference
• Standing to Appeal an Adverse IPR Decision to the CAFC
• A patent specification need enable full scope of the claimed invention
• A catalog disclosed at an event not open to the public may still be considered a prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
• Post-filing clarification of an ambiguous feature in a pre-filing reference is not sufficient to establish inherent properties of the feature in the earlier publication
• To read, or not to read an unrecited limitation into a patent claim, that is a question
• Spray your way to non-obviousness: Patents directed to intranasal delivery of migraine drugs not obvious where prior art would have resulted in reduced efficacy
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  One More Bite at Overcoming a Denial of a Motion to Amend
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  The Definiteness Standard for AIA Trials is Still Undecided
• The test for obviousness is controlled by what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done based on the teachings of the references
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  What do dioxaborinanes and benzoxaboroles have in common? They both exhibit activity against fungi, and so Anacor failed before the Federal Circuit, which could not have been fun-guys…
• Newly Adopted Claim Construction Overcomes Anticipation & Obviousness Rejections
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The Written Description Requirement to a Claim for a Genus Can Be Satisfied if a Single Species of that Genus is Disclosed and Other Members of that Genus are Well Known in the Art
• To Combine or not to Combine.
• The CAFC Finds the Board’s Claim Construction to Be Unreasonably Broad.
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  A Non-Overlapping Prior Art Range May Still Render a Claimed Range Obvious.
• Words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of a product or a process of manufacture are interpreted as structural limitations by default.
• CAFC relies on extrinsic evidence to define a claim term and to demonstrate inherency.
• CAFC looks to complete disclosure of patent at issue and its related patents to counter patent owner’s arguments based on cherry-picking.
• The USPTO cannot refuse registration of immoral or scandalous marks
• Another “key” decision on joint/divided infringement
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Must Be Consistent with the Specification
• Claims directed to an abstract idea without specifying an inventive concept would fail the Step Two of Alice
• When Is Prior Art Analogous?
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Bayer left hard up when CAFC reversed district courts final judgment with some stiff words for the lower court.
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Masterminding functional claiming of an apparatus, but too soft on intrinsic evidence for claim construction.
• Beware of an Interpretation of a Reference that is Based Upon a Hypothetical Embodiment
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura, Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  Ambiguity in specific definition of claim terms.
• When is Evidence of Written Description Too Late?
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The Federal Circuit finally provided guidance on patent venue rules and struck down Judge Gilstrap’s patent venue rules
• The Board Stretches the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard to Broadest Possible Interpretation
• Yoshiya  Nakamura, Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  Obviousness Found Even When the Burden to Prove Inherency Remains on Examiner
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  A “Teaching Away” Argument Must be Commensurate in Scope with the Claims
• Tell Me Why: A conclusion of obviousness based on routine optimization must be supported by articulated reasoning
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Thomas  Brown  –  CAFC finds broadly claimed computer memory system eligible under first step of Alice.
• CAFC Agrees with the Board that will.i.am Restriction in the Identification of Goods is Meaningless
• Drug patent survives invalidity challenge based on lack of teaching or suggestion in the art, teaching away, unexpected results and long-felt need
• A diagnostic method that raises, not patent-eligibility, but written description issues.
• Sadao  Kinashi, Sadao  Kinashi  –  When Motion to amend is filed in IPR, Opponent can cite additional references.
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  5000 Plus Page Provisional Application Does Not Enable Claims in Issued Patent
• Statements made in IPR proceeding can be relied on to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer during claim construction
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Alice: ‘This is impossible’ (Alice in Wonderland 2010): Alice (Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,), aid’s in striking yet another blow against the pursuit of diagnostic test method
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Examiner’s determination that a claim term is means-plus-function in allowing an application does not bind the Appeals Board and CAFC.
• A reference can be a background reference for evidence of motivation to combine even if not sufficient on its own to support a rejection
• Of Closed Pods, Open Cartridges, Single-Brew Coffee Machines, and Descriptive Issues
• Claims Directed to the Abstract Idea of Encoding/Decoding Image Data are Found Not Patent Eligible
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick, Yoshiya  Nakamura, Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  The On-Sale Bar Under the America Invents Act Does Not Require a Public Disclosure of the Invention
• The Federal Circuit indirectly imports limitations from the specification into the claims through claim construction
• Back to Basics: In re Chudik offers a refresher on the law of anticipation for functional limitations
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Thomas  Brown  –  CAFC refuses to second guess a district court determination on a motion for attorney fees under 285.
• Derivation not demonstrated by conception of an idea different from claimed invention, even where the idea would make the claimed invention obvious
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  Using Specific Data Structures Does Not Necessarily Survive Alice
• Claims reciting generic, computer implementation of abstract idea found lacking “inventive concept”
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The Supply of a Single Component of a Multicomponent Invention Is Not an Infringing Act Under 35 U.S.C. §271(F)(1)
• Sadao  Kinashi, Sadao  Kinashi  –  The Phrase “Consist Of” Creates Strong Presumption That Anything Not Specified Is Excluded.
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  Another Patent Invalidated by Inter Partes Review and BRI Standard
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  When the acts of one are attributable to the other.
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Recent Trends on Venues for Patent Litigation, 2/1/2017
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Article for "IPnomics" re: the CAFC case of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
• A Legal Strategist’s Guide to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Practice (3d Ed.)
• Timeliness and relevance are not sufficient conditions for automatically granting a motion to submit supplemental information after IPR institution
• In a post-Williamson decision, “compliance mechanism” is a means-plus-function element that does not comply with the requirements under §112.
• When inventors are wrong, a certificate of correction can set things right—if the specification is robust
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Thomas  Brown  –  PTAB Decision to Institute a CBM is Final and Non-Appealable
• Definitional Language In The Specification May Be Fully Determinative Of Claim Construction
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Sung-Hoon Kim wrote an article called "Updates on U.S. Patent Reform" published 12/1/15 by KLRI (in Korean)
• Tense Decision: CAFC Reverses PTAB Decision Based on the Meaning of the Word “Is”
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  CAFC emphasizes “would have motivation” in obviousness determinations from Inter Partes Reviews
• Digital data is not considered “article” within the meaning of Section 337
• Sadao  Kinashi, Sadao  Kinashi  –  Timeliness of IPR petition under §315(b) is an issue of whether to initiate the proceeding, and Board’s determination is nonappealable under §314(d), and the court cannot review it.
• A guide for the international patent attorney: how to read the recent CAFC en banc decision on laches–a viable defense against patent infringement, for the time being
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura, Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  Board’s Jurisdiction Over Examiner’s Decision Of Not Finding Substantial New Question Made As To Claims Added Or Amended After Institution Of Reexamination.
• Andrew  G.  Melick, Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Intent of Amendment is Irrelevant for Determining Intervening Rights
• Patent claims, previously definite pre-Nautilus, are now indefinite post-Nautilus
• Adele  Critchley, Adele  Critchley  –  Patentee Likely (Con)vexed After The Court of Appeals Fails To See Through The Same Lens as them…
• Federal Circuit Finds Claimed Invention Obvious, Reversing Trial Judge & Jury
• The USPTO Appeals Board Must Adequately Explain Its Reasoning
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  NON-ANALOGOUS ART
• 35 U.S.C. δ271(a) and the meaning of “within the United States”
• A “revolutionary” prenatal care patent is invalidated under the Mayo test
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  CAFC’s majority says that a PTO’ decision to institute IPR is not appealable even after a final decision and a broadest reasonable interpretation rule applies in IPR
• Indefiniteness kills patent, as expert testimony cannot compensate for the failure of intrinsic evidence to provide a “reasonably certain” meaning to claim term
• Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
• CAFC says reissued patent can’t sail into safe harbor
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Thomas  Brown  –  “Strong Presumption” Not So Strong After all
• CBM PETITIONS – SECOND CHANCES CAN BE TOUGH
• Presenting Extrinsic Evidence At District Court Does Not Guarantee Review For Clear Error On Appeal
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Reissue cannot modify Claim Construction determined for repeated Original Patent Claims
• In a design patent infringement case, 35 U.S.C. §289 authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design
• Under the AIA, a False Marking Action Can Be Brought by a Potential Competitor who Suffers a Competitive Injury
• Sadao  Kinashi, Sadao  Kinashi  –  PTO Need Not Terminate Inter Partes Re-exam Even After Parties Have Settled on Validity.
• John  P.  Kong  –  Federal Circuit Reasonably Certain Biosig’s Patent Not Indefinite
• Claimed Narrow Range Must Be Shown To Be Critical To Operability Of Invention To Avoid Anticipation By Broader Range
• The Supreme Court’s Recent Lowering of the Evidentiary Standard for Awarding Legal Fees in the Octane Case Turns-Up the Heat on Aggressive Patentees
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Claim terms narrowed by prosecution record
• Adele  Critchley  –  The act of contemplation then creates the thing created (Isaac D'Israeli).
• Claim term “at least one component of [a unit]” excludes the entire unit – expert testimony cannot override intrinsic evidence
• CAFC Finds Proof of Damages Inadequate
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  "Comments on the Recent Development of the Innovation Act" - The Electronic Times, 3/24/2015 (published in Korean)
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Stephen  Adrian  –  A Computer Implemented Method Is Found Obvious – (But Likely Would Have Been Challenged As Patent-Ineligible Post-Alice)
• Claim Construction
• A Refined Standard for Appellate Review of Patent Claim Construction: “de novo” on Ultimate Claim Construction with “Clear Error” on Subsidiary Factfindings
• Yoshiya  Nakamura, Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  Improper Modification of Cited Art in Obviousness Determination: How to Define “Principle of Operation” or “Intended Purpose” of the Art.
• If At First You Don’t Succeed, (Don’t) Try, Try Again?: Myriad Genetics Lost More Claims To 35 U.S.C. §101.
• The Fate of Software Inventions Related to Information Processing
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Thomas  Brown  –  Ecommerce Patent Found to Have Patent Eligible Subject Matter Under Alice.
• Environment of Confidentiality and Tight Control Trumps Publicly Visible Location of Invention in “Public Use” Challenge to Patent Validity
• Establishing a General Premise Does Not Satisfy the High Burden of Proving an Inherent Disclosure of a Claimed Feature under an Obviousness Rejection
• John  P.  Kong  –  "Surviving §101 Step 2: Is There "Significantly More"?", IPWatchdog 12/21/14
• John  P.  Kong  –  "Surviving 101 Challenges After Alice Gone Wild", IPWatchdog, 12/19/14
• Sung-Hoon  Kim, Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  The appeal to the Federal Circuit would be an option if a motion to stay pending the CBM review is denied
• Claimed inventions of a reissue patent must be clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the original specification
• Upon Further Review, the Ruling on the Field Stands – Federal Circuit Sustains PTO’s Refusal to Withdraw Terminal Disclaimer
• John  P.  Kong, John  P.  Kong  –  "Surviving Alice Gone Wild", CAFC Alert, 11/26/14
• CAFC Redefines the Singular Phrase “a patient” as a Plural Patient Population
• Michael  J.  Caridi, Michael  Caridi  –  Harvard/Dupont’s Cancer Mouse Patent Nixed by Parent Patent’s Terminal Disclaimer
• Sadao  Kinashi, Sadao  Kinashi  –  Negotiation in the U.S. Is Not Sale or Offer for Sale within the U.S. Under §271(a) When Substantial Sales Activities Occur Outside the U.S.
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  "Comments on the Recent Decrease of Patent Case Filings in the U.S.", Electronic Times (Korean Publication), October 26, 2014
• Be Mindful that the Potential Reach of Claimed Components under the Doctrine of Equivalents Can Be Affected by Amendments to Claimed Sub-Components.
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  Inequitable Conduct Under the Therasense Standard
• Adele  Critchley  –  What Do a Resealable Cartridge for Low Pressure Liquid Chromatography and a Soda-Pop Bottle and Cap have in Common?
• EPOS Technologies v. Pegasus Technologies
• Jurisdiction for Appeal
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  When Legitimate Advocacy Crosses the Line to Inequitable Conduct
• Written Description
• CAFC Provides Guidance on Nautilus Indefiniteness Standard
• In the Wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, the Federal Circuit strikes down another patentee's claims for reciting patent ineligible abstract idea
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  Prima Facie Case of Obviousness is Not Established Solely Because End Point of Claimed Range is Close to Disclosed Range
• "Double Trouble:The Expanding Application of The Judicial Doctrine of Obviousness-type Double Patenting", AIPLA Biotech Buzz, Biotech Patent Education Subcommittee, June 2014.
• "Battle of IP Rights In China, 2014 Edition", Contributor
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  "U.S. Supreme Court's Opinion on Excessive Patent Litigation Cost", (published in Korean), Electronic Times, June 18, 2014
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Beware of a Surprise Co-Owner of a Patent Who Does Not Want to Enforce its Patent
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  "The Recent Trend on Software Patents in the U.S.", (published in Korean) by the Korean Patent Attorneys Association, June 10, 2014
• "CAFC holds 'Dolly the Sheep' Claims Ineligible, But Leaves Door Open To Claims Reciting Clones 'Markedly Different' From Nature" CAFC Alert, May 21, 2014
• Michael  J.  Caridi  –  "CAFC Makes Sure Pre- And Post-Issuance §112 Indefiniteness Are Distinct In Anticipation Of Nautilus, Inc. V. Biosig Instruments, Inc. Decision By SCOTUS.", CAFC Alert May 14, 2014
• "Once Again, The Plain Meaning Controls", CAFC Alert, May 9, 2014
• "Reexamined Patent Claims Are Assumed To Be Subset Of Original Patent Claims Unless Proven Otherwise, For Application Of Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)", CAFC Alert, April 24, 2014
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  "Reexamination Bites Another Patent Owner", CAFC Alert, April 16, 2014
• "The Court Gives Roadmap to Patent Trolls on How to Obtain Lucrative Settlements from Customers without Declaratory Judgment Recourse from Manufacturers", CAFC Alert, April 11, 2014
• Adele  Critchley  –  "Nothing Lost but Nothing Gained: Generic Producer Evades Infringement but Fails to Invalidate Patent under §112", CAFC Alert, April 3, 2014
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  "No Claim Preclusion. No Issue Preclusion. No Problem. The Kessler Doctrine Fills The Gap.", CAFC Alert, March 26,2014
• "There Must Be A Clear and Compelling Reason To Construe A Claim Term In A Way Other Than Its Ordinary Meaning", CAFC Alert, March 19,2014
• "Court Reaffirms That Extrinsic Evidence Should Not Be Used To Construe Claim When It Is Inconsistent With More Reliable Intrinsic Evidence", CAFC Alert, March 11, 2014
• "In 6-4 En Banc Decision, Federal Circuit Maintains No-Deference Review of District Courts' Claim Constructions", CAFC Alert, March 11, 2014
• "The Term 'Receiver' Connotes Sufficiently Definite Structure to Avoid Interpretation Under § 112, Sixth Paragraph" CAFC Alert, February 7, 2014
• "In Case of First Impression, the CAFC Determines that the Principles of Prosecution History Estoppel Apply to Design Patents" CAFC Alert January 31, 2014
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  "Weak Prima Facie Case Obviousness vs. Strong Evidence of Non-Obviousness" - CAFC Alert January 22, 2014
• "Rejection of Claim Reciting “Adapted to” Perform Function Requires More Than a Prior Art Having Mere “Capability” of Performing Function" CAFC Alert, January 15, 2014
• John  P.  Kong  –  "Federal Circuit Restricts ITC Remedies for Induced Infringement" - CAFC Alert, January 14, 2014
• Patent Infringement Litigation As A Double-edged Sword: Invalidated Patents and Inequitable Conduct, CAFC Alert
• "Beware Of Relying On A Single Example, Since It May Limit Claim Scope", CAFC Alert, October 17, 2013
• “Predictably Divided CAFC Panel Finds Computer System Claims Not Patent-Eligible,” CAFC Alert, September 17, 2013
• “Divided CAFC Finds Computer System Claims Patent Ineligible,” IP Watchdog, September 13, 2013.
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  “Recent Trend on Subject Matter Eligibility of Software Patents", Electronic Times 09/04/2013 (Published in Korean)
• “Trace Contamination by Patented Seeds Insufficient to Establish Standing to Challenge Patents”, IPWatchdog, June 25, 2013
• Even Without a Lexicography One Term May Have More Than One Meaning
• “Sowing the seeds of wrath: Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion Could Not Save Farmer from Liability for Infringing Monsanto’s Patents on Genetically Modified Seeds”, IPWatchdog, May 19, 2013
• John  P.  Kong  –  "The Alice in Wonderland En Banc Decision by the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp" IP Watchdog
• "CAFC Reverses Trial Court's Indefiniteness Ruling", CAFC Alert, May 9, 2013
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  "If Alleged Infringer Doesn't Cross-Appeal Validity of Narrowly Interpreted Claim, He May Not Challenge Validity of Later Broadly Constructed Claim", CAFC Alert, May 8, 2013
• "Claim Construction: A Game of Chance at the Federal Circuit”, IPWatchdog, April 26,2013
• "Clear and Unmistakeable Evidence of a Disclaimer Found in Response to Enablement Rejection", CAFC Alert, April 24, 2013
• "Divided Claim Construction Leads to Reversal of Jury Verdict Against Alleged Infringer", CAFC Alert, April 17, 2013
• Michael  J.  Caridi  –  "CAFC Clarifies the Presumption That Prior Art is Enabled After in Re Antor Media Corp (Fed. Cir. 2012)", April 10, 2013
• "CAFC Draws a Line in the Sand as to Adding 'Boundary' Lines; PTO Recants Earlier Design Practice", CAFC Alert, April 3, 2013
• "CAFC Rejects the Doctrine of 'Marking Estoppel'", CAFC Alert, March 27, 2013
• Thomas  E.  Brown  –  "Prior Art Reference Must Disclose Arrangement Of Elements, Not Merely Each Discrete Element", CAFC Alert, March 20, 2013
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  In re Jeffrey Hubbell: An Inventor Changing Jobs Creates Double Patenting Problem, IPWatchdog, March 15, 2013
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  "Problems That May Arise When Inventor Changes Employment: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting", CAFC Alert, March 13, 2013
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "Direct Infringement Requires That Party Exercises 'Control Or Direction' Over Performance Of Each Claimed Step, But Inducement Does Not Have Single-Entity Requirement", CAFC Alert, March 11, 2013
• "A District Court Application Of Therasense", CAFC Alert, February 28, 2013
• "Entirely Reasonable? 'Black Box' Claim Interpretation By Split Federal Circuit Panel Leaves Us In The Dark", CAFC Alert, February 13, 2013
• "Board Should Consider Appellee's Grounds For Affirming Rejection Presented To Examiner During Reexamination, Even If Grounds Had Not Been Raised On Appeal", CAFC Alert, February 6, 2013
• "Claim Construction And Expert Testimony In Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation", CAFC Alert, January 31, 2013
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  The New US Patent Law (AIA), January 31, 2013
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  新米国特許法(American Invents Atc)対訳付き
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  "Applicant's Failure To Request Claim Construction Under §112, 6th Paragraph May Invoke Waiver Of Such Claim Construction", CAFC Alert, January 23, 2013
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, John  P.  Kong  –  "Livid About Non-precedential Avid Decision From Federal Circuit", IPWatchdog, January 24, 2013
• "Inconsistent Term Usage In Specification And Lack Of Claim Term Definitions Does Not Lead To Disaster For Patentee...This Time", CAFC Alert, January 16, 2013
• “CAFC Favors Non-Practicing Entities on “Domestic Injury”, IPWatchdog, January 16, 2013
• "The Non-Obviousness Of Obviousness Determinations: Even In Simple Technologies, It Can Be Difficult To Draw A Line In Obviousness Determinations", CAFC Alert, January 9, 2013
• "Elimination of False Marketing Actions Does Not Violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution", CAFC Alert, January 3, 2013
• "Vitiation Exclusion: A Judicial Determination Ensuring That Doctrine of Equivalents Does Not Overtake Statutory Function of Claims in Defining Scope of Exclusive Rights", CAFC Alert, January 2, 2013
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  "Dealing With Different Embodiments of the Specification", CAFC Alert, December 26, 2012
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  "License agreement to a patent may extend to a corresponding reissue patent", CAFC Alert, December 19, 2012
• "Non-Enabling Disclosure by First Inventor of Low Defect Single Crystal Was Sufficient to Defeat Under 102(g) Patent Claim of Subsequent Inventor", CAFC Alert, December 12, 2012
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  "Prior Art Can Show What the Claims Would Mean to Those Skilled in the Art", CAFC Alert, December 5, 2012
• John  P.  Kong  –  "Method Claim Survives Over MPF Claim's Demise Under Aristocrat", CAFC Alert, November 28, 2012
• "Latest Developments in Calculating Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) From the District Courts", CAFC Alert, November 21, 2012
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  "Article Posted to Online Periodical Qualified as 'Printed Publication' Under §102(b) Where Person Skilled in the Art Could Have Located It", CAFC Alert, November 15, 2012
• "CAFC Does Not Find Means-Plus-Function in a 'Height Adjustment Mechanism'", CAFC Alert, November 7, 2012
• "Designer's Connection With Paris Insufficient To Overcome a Section 2(e)(3) Refusal", CAFC Alert, October 24, 2012
• Michael  J.  Caridi  –  "Apple is Bit at CAFC: The Court Reversed and Remanded a Preliminary Injunction Obtained at the District Court Against Samsung's Galaxy Nexus Smartphone", CAFC Alert, October 17, 2012
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  "The AIA is the First Universally Equal Patent Law in the World", IPWatchdog, October 14, 2012
• "Saved by Therasense: Deliberate decision to withhold references not found where art was cited in foreign counterpart and domestic co-pending applications", CAFC Alert, October 10, 2012
• "Like Prior Art Patents, Potentially Anticipatory Non-Patent Printed Publications Are Presumed to be Enabling", CAFC Alert, October 5, 2012
• "Belkin v. Kappos: PTO's Determination of the Threshold Issue in Reexamination is Not Appealable", CAFC Alert, October 3, 2012
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  "Burden Of Persuasion In The Post-Medimmune World", CAFC Alert, September 27, 2012
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "Damage Calculations Based on Entire Market Value Rule is Improper Absent Evidence that Patented Feature Drives Demand For Entire Mulch-Component Product", CAFC Alert, September 19, 2012
• "Liability For Induced Infringement Of A Method Claim No Longer Requires Proof Of Direct Infringement", CAFC Alert, September 14, 2012
• "Summary Judgement Improperly Granted in Trade Secret Misappropriation Case", CAFC Alert, September 7, 2012
• "Federal Circuit Judges Spar Over Post-FDA-Approval Application of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor", CAFC Alert, September 4, 2012
• "Prosecution Argument Bars Later Recapture through Broadening Reissue", CAFC Alert, August 29, 2012
• "Fractured CAFC panel again affirms patent eligibility of isolated DNA, and applies Mayo", CAFC Alert, August 21, 2012
• "Using Trademark in Categories Other Than The One As Filed May Result in Abandonment", CAFC Alert, August 15, 2012
• "Attempting to Rely on Claim Preambles Is Still A Bad Idea", CAFC Alert, August 1, 2012
• "A Federal Circuit Lesson on the Structuring of Employment Agreements to Ensure That A Company Owns Its Employees' Inventions", CAFC Alert, July 25, 2012
• "Federal Circuit Panel Rehears ACLU, Myriad Gene Patent Case", IP Watchdog, July 22, 2012
• "Summary of Oral Arguments in AMP v. USPTO Remand", CAFC Alert, July 20, 2012
• "CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation: An Attempt In Formulating the Abstractness of the 'Abstract Ideas' Test to Patent Eligibility", CAFC Alert, July 18, 2012
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  "When Should Incorporation By Reference Language Be Taken Care Of?", CAFC Alert, July 11, 2012
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  "Presumption of Validity Attaches to All Issued Patents, Even Incorrectly Issued Patents", CAFC Alert, July 5, 2012
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  "Seagate Objective-Reckless Standard is Question of Law to be Decided by Judge and Subject to De Novo Review", CAFC Alert, June 28, 2012
• "CAFC Pointers on Proving Lack of 'Substantial Non-Infringing Uses' in Pleading Contributory Infringement", CAFC Alert, June 20, 2012
• John  P.  Kong  –  "Rule 4(k)(2) Personal Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Defendant", CAFC Alert, June 13, 2012
• "CAFC defines “common sense” and warns against impermissible hindsight", CAFC Alert, June 6, 2012
• "A Showing of Causal Nexus is Required Between Infringement and Alleged Harm to Patentee", CAFC Alert, May 23, 2012
• "If At First You Don't Succeed...", CAFC Alert, May 18, 2012
• "Supreme Court Sides with Inventors in Kappos v. Hyatt", CAFC Alert, May 16, 2012
• Thomas  E.  Brown  –  "Means-Plus-Function: The Achilles' Heel", CAFC Alert, May 9, 2012
• Michael  J.  Caridi  –  "BD Stumbles on the Fine Functionality Line Between Patents and Trademarks", CAFC Alert, May 2, 2012
• Stephen  G.  Adrian  –  "Every Patent Practitioner's Nightmare - Prosecution Mistakes That Can't Be Fixed", CAFC Alert, April 25, 2012
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "Revisiting Therasense, CAFC Finds That an Inventor's Subjective Belief that Submission of Documents Was Unnecessary May Not Be Sufficient to Avoid a showing of Intent to Deceive", CAFC Alert, April 18, 2012
• "Another Per Se Rule Bites the Dust. A Reference That Discloses a Range Encompassing a Somewhat Narrower Claimed Range May Not Be Sufficient to Establish a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness", CAFC Alert, April 12, 2012
• "CAFC Holds All the Claims of a Patent Have the Same Expiration Date, whether the Claims are Drawn to the Product Subject to Patent Term Extension or Not", CAFC Alert, April 11, 2012
• "Computer-Implemented 'Control Means' Requires Description of Step-By-Step Algorithm Even if Not Key Feature of Claimed Invention", CAFC Alert, April 4, 2012
• "Unexpected Results, Not Disclosed in the Specification, of a Compound May Overcome a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness", CAFC Alert, April 2, 2012
• “Has Open Season on Infringement of Medical Device Patents Begun?”, Medical Device Summit, April, 2012
• “Production and characterization of carbamazepine nanocrystals for continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing", Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Volume 101 Issue 4, 1178-1188.
• "In a dispute over a patent licensing agreement, CAFC refuses to deny enforcement of an arbitration clause based on a technicality", CAFC Alert, March 29, 2012
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  "Mayo v. Prometheus 米国最高裁判決", CAFC Alert, March 23, 2012
• "The Threshold to Acquiring Intervening Rights by Reexamination Requires New or Amended Claim Language", CAFC Alert, March 21, 2012
• "Supreme Court strikes down diagnostic method claims as non-patent-eligible subject matter", CAFC Alert, March 20, 2012
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  "Interpretation of Statutory Two-Year Time limit for Enlarging the Scope of Claim in a Continuing Reissue Application filed After the Two-Year Window", CAFC Alert, March 14, 2012
• "CAFC Invalidates Claims Directed to a Method of Creating a Real Estate Investment Instrument as Unpatentable Abstract Idea", CAFC Alert, March 7, 2012
• "The Patent Court Revisits IPXL Doctrine Regarding Prohibition on Hybrid Claiming", CAFC Alert, February 29, 2012
• "Lack of Demonstrated Criticality of Narrowly Claimed Range Fails to Overcome Anticipation Rejection Based on Broadly Disclosed Prior Art Range", CAFC Alert, February 22, 2012
• "CAFC Allows Willful Infringer to Continue Infringements for an 'Ongoing Royalty' due to 'the Public's Interest to Allow Competition in the Medical Device Arena'", CAFC Alert, February 16, 2012
• "CAFC Reviews and Applies the Doctrine of Claim Construction", CAFC Alert, February 11, 2012
• Andrew  G.  Melick  –  "CAFC Provides Guidance for Patent Eligibility of Computer Aided Methods", CAFC Alert, February 1, 2012
• “E-Commerce: Structuring U.S. Patent Applications to Protect Against the Foreign Activities of Competitors”, IP Strategist, February, 2002
• "Will the Marine Polymer Expansion of Intervening Rights Be Reversed?" CAFC Alert, January 30, 2012
• "Joint Inventorship of a Novel Compound May Exist Even if Co-Inventor Only Developed Method of Making", CAFC Alert, January 25, 2012
• John  P.  Kong  –  "KSR Reigned in for a Preliminary Injunction", CAFC Alert, January 18, 2012
• U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0185392
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  "Infringement Argument Contradicting Prosecution History and Based on Unreliable Expert Testimony Can Make the Case 'Exceptional' Incurring Opponent's Attorney Fees", CAFC Alert, January 11, 2012
• “America Invents Act – How Will It Affect You?” Medical Device Summit, January, 2012
• "Means-Plus-Function Claims-'Algorithm' Can be Expressed in Any Understandable Terms Including in Prose", CAFC Alert, December 28, 2011
• "Under Unusual Circumstances, CAFC Re-Affirms that Conception Does Not Require Understanding How or Why an Invention Works", CAFC Alert, December 21, 2011
• Michael  J.  Caridi  –  "CAFC Decision Reaffirms in Re Swanson While Dissent Raises Constitutional Questions Over Res Judicata and Issue Preclusion", CAFC Alert, December 14, 2011
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  "Quick Comparison Between US and JP Prior Art Qualification", CAFC Alert, December 8, 2011
• Thomas  E.  Brown  –  "CAFC Rejects BPAI's 'Thrust of Rejection' Argument", CAFC Alert, December 1, 2011
• "Medtronic's New Intervening Rights Assertion Falls Short For Now", USPTO Litigation Alert, December 2011
• “A Pointer From Reexamination Practice”, USPTO Litigation Alert, December 2011
• “Attacking Patents Already Adjudicated To Be Valid”, USPTO Litigation Alert, December 2011
• “PTO Board Reverses Rejection Of Claim For Being Broadened In Reexamination”, USPTO Litigation Alert, December 2011
• “Are Genes Patent-Eligible Subject Matter? The Myriad Case.” co-authored with Yuko Matsutoya, Pharmstage, 2011 (in Japanese)
• "AMP v. USPTO: The Latest Developments", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, September 21, 2011
• "Classen v. Biogen: CAFC Tries To Target Patent Eligibility But Misses", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, September 16, 2011
• Yoshiya  Nakamura  –  "AMP v. USPTO: Myriad Wins This Battle, But Will the War Continue?", CAFC Alert, August 16, 2011
• "AMP v. USPTO: Myriad wins this battle, but will the war continue?", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, August 1, 2011
• "How Big a Role Does the Specification Play in Construction of Patent Claims?", CAFC Alert, July 14, 2011
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.", CAFC Alert, June 24, 2011
• "Boston Scientific Corp. V. Johnson & Johnson, Cordis Corp. and Wyeth, Fed. Cir. June 7, 2011", CAFC Alert, June 15, 2011
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "CAFC Creates New Inequitable Conduct Standard in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson", CAFC Alert, June 3, 2011
• Stephen  G.  Adrian, Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "In Re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 2010-1260, Decided: May 3, 2011, Before Dyk, Friedman, and Prost, Circuit Judges", CAFC Alert, May 19, 2011
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., CAFC, Case 07-CV-0585, Decided April 29, 2011(Focus on Best Mode Issue of the Case)", CAFC Alert, May 11, 2011
• Shuji  Yoshizaki  –  "McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, CAFC Decided on April 12, 2011", CAFC Alert, April 20, 2011
• "AMP v. U.S.P.T.O.: Oral Argument at the Federal Circuit", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, April 5, 2011
• “Virginia Patent Foundation’s Motion for Reconsideration Denied – Intervening Rights Still Absolve GE of Damages for Activities before Reexamination Certificate Issue Date,” US PTO Litigation Alert, February 10, 2011.
• "Prometheus v. Mayo: An unsurprising outcome, but a preview of the Myriad genetics case?", JDSupra, December 20, 2010
• “Effect of tethering chemistry of cationic surfactants on exfoliation, electrospinnability and diameters of PMMA/clay nanocomposite fibers", Polymer, Vol 51 Issue 26, 6295-6302.
• "Major Funai TV Patent, Once Held Valid by CAFC, Brought Down in Reexamination", IPWatchdog, November 3, 2010
• "CAFC Finds HFC Patent Valid: Honeywell Was Not "Another Inventor" under § 102(g)(2)", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, October 15, 2010
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  知財、この人にきく〈Vol.3〉
• "Goeddel v. Sugano: Fully describe your invention, don't leave it for others to "envision"", JDSupra, September 13, 2010
• "Microsoft Files Another Reexam Against $290 Million i4i Patent", IPWatchdog, September 4, 2010
• CAFC Rules For False Marking Plaintiff In Stauffer Case, PLI Patent Law Practice Center, August 31, 2010
• "Do You Have What It Takes to Bring Suit at the ITC? — Standing and the ITC’s Domestic Industry Requirement", IPWatchdog (with Merritt Blakeslee), August 24, 2010
• "Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations", PLI Patent Law Practice Center, August 16, 2010
• "Trial Judge Terminates Injunction After PTO Issues Advisory Action in Reexamination", IPWatchdog, July 26, 2010
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “About IP Matters, This Is The Person We Need To Ask” Vol. 3, 2010
• “In re Fallaux: One-Way/Two-Way Test Under the Double Patenting Doctrine”, Maryland State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section, Newsletter Volume 2, December 2009
• “Preparation of photochromic poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) fibers by electrospinning,” Polymer 2009, Vol 50 Issue 16, 3974-3980
• “Specification Limits Claim Construction: Netcraft Corp. v. Ebay, Inc.”, Maryland State Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Update, Volume 2, June 2009
• “A Signaling Pathway Contributing to Platelet Storage Lesion Development”, Transfusion 49 (2009) 1944-55 (with Schubert P, Thon JN, Walsh GM, et al.)
• "The Application of KSR to Pharmaceutical Cases", Patent, Vol. 61, May 2008
• “Tuning the rate dependent stiffness of materials by exploiting Néel relaxation phenomena in magnetic nanoparticles", Advanced Functional Materials, 2008, Volume 18 Issue 3, 462-469.
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Introduction to European Patent System”, 2nd Edition, 2008
• “Loss of PIP5KIβ demonstrates that PIP5KI isoform-specific PIP2 synthesis is required for IP3 formation”, PNAS, 2008 (with Y. Wang, X. Chen, L. Lian, T. Stalker, T. Sasaki, Y. Kanaho, L. F. Brass, J. K. Choi, J. H. Hartwig and C. S. Abrams)
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Introduction to U.S. Patent Claims”, 2007
• “Why Wait for Oppositions?” (with Kate Addison) IDEA, vol. 47, No. 3, 2007
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  “Flexible Multimodal Tactile Sensing System for Object Identification”, IEEE Sensors Conference, Korea, October 2006 (with Jonathan Engel, Nannan Chen, Craig Tucker, Chang Liu and Douglas Jones)
• “A nondestructive experimental study of stress transfer across polymer interfaces by moiré interferometry,” Journal of Polymer Science,Part B: Polymer Physics, Volume 43 Issue 16, 2196-2206.
• “Production of sub-micron diameter silk fibers under benign processing conditions by two-fluid electrospinning,” Macromolecules, 2006, Volume 39 Issue 3 1102-1107.
• “Deterring Trademark Infringement in Counterfeit Goods,” Germeshausen Center Newsletter, Winter/Spring 2006
• “Subtraction Pathway Microarray Analysis Reveals Tubulogenic Fibronectin to be Regulated via the MAPK/ERK Signaling Pathway”, AJP, 2006 (with Z. Liu, N. Hellman, J. Spector, J. Robinson, J. Tobias and J. H. Lipschutz)
• “Electrospinning of Poly (MMA-co-MAA) copolymers and their layered Silicate nanocomposites for improved thermal properties,” Polymer, 2005 Volume 46 Issue 10, 3407-3418.
• “Recent CAFC Trends” JIPA Program, 2005
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  “Texture classification using a polymer-based MEMS tactile sensor”, Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 20 (2005) 912-920 (with Jonathan Engel, Chang Liu, and Douglas L. Jones)
• Thesis: “Development of Sub-Micrometer Scale Sensors for Tuberculosis (TB) Detection”
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Thesis: Textual classification using a polymer-based MEMS tactile sensor
• “Mechanical properties of electrospun silk nanofiber,” Macromolecules Volume 37 Issue 18, 6856-6864
• “Field-responsive superparamagnetic composite nanofibers by electrospinning,” Polymer, 2004 Volume 45 Issue 16, 5505-5514.
• “Cantilever-based Mass Sensor for Immuno-detection of Multiple Bioactive Targets”, Micromachining and Microfabrication, Vol. 5345, 2004 (with B. Xu, J. Welch and J. Castracane)
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Introduction to US Patent System”, 2nd Edition”, 2004
• "Deoxycholate, an endogenous tumor promoter and DNA damaging agent, modulates BRCA-1 expression in apoptosis-sensitive epithelial cells: Loss of BRCA-1 Expression in colonic adenocarcinomas", Nutrition and Cancer, 2003 (with Donato R. Romagnolo DR, Jennifer Ku, Brandon D. Jeffy, et al.)
• “Medical Device Patents: The Unique Hurdles Faced By Medical Device Companies”, Regulatory Affairs Focus, May, 2002
• "Epigenetics of breast cancer: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as risk factors", Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 2002 (with Brandon D. Jeffy and Donato F. Romagnolo)
• "Activation of the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor pathway is not sufficient for transcriptional repression of BRCA-1: Requirements for metabolism of benzo[a]pyrene to 7r,8t-dihydroxy-9t, 10-epoxy-7,8,9,20-tetrahydrobenzo[a]pyrene", Cancer Research, 2002 (with Brandon D. Jeffy, Ryan B. Chirnomas, Eddy J. Chen, Jean M. Gudas, and Donato F. Romagnolo)
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Introduction to European Patent System”, 2002
• “China Joins The WTO: A New Era For Intellectual Property Rights In China”, Hogan & Hartson Focus, December 2001
• “Medical Device Patents”, Hogan & Hartson Focus, November, 2001
• “State Street's Sidekick: Design Patent Protection for Computer Displays”, International Legal Strategy, October, 2001
• “Advanced Development of the Digital Tuberculosis Tester for MDR-TB Screening”, SPIE-Bio-Medical Optics, Vol. 4255, 2001 (with J. Smith, M. Simkule and J. Castracane, et al.)
• “Genotyping and preparation of the recombinant nucleocapsid protein antigen of hanta virus”, Chinese Medical Journal, Vol. 114 (10), 2001 (with J. Tang, M. Cao, et al.)
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Introduction to US Patent System”, 2001
• "Essentials of Drafting U.S. Patent Specifications and Claims", 2000
• “Construction and Characterization of Two Mutants of Pro-urokinase (Ala175-Ser, Tyr187-His and Ala175-Ser, Tyr187-His)”, Journal of Nanjing University (Natural Science), Vol. 36 (2), 2000 (with W. Shi, H. Zhu, Y. Xue and Z. Ma)
• “Nouvelle Loi sur les Brevets aux Etats-Unis: Conséquences pour les Déposants Etrangers”, Echanges ASPI, No. 61, 2000
• “The Doctrine of Equivalents in the United States,” Echanges ASPI, No. 61, 2000 (in French)
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “CAFC Statistics for Intellectual Property Today”, December 1999
• “Challenges to Attorney-Client Privilege in Discovery Procedures in a Lawsuit in the United States" Echanges ASPI, No. 56, 1999 (in French)
• “Novelty and Nonobviousness” NGB Program, 1997
• “What Every Chemist Should Know About Patents,” American Chemical Institute, 2nd and 3rd editions, 1997 and 2002
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  CAFC Annual Report (every year since 1997)
• “High Tech Negotiations: Lotus v. Borland Redux,” The American Lawyer
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “American Lawyer’s Jokes”, 1996
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “3000 Days In The Firm”, 1994
• "CAFC: The Judiciary’s Latest Invention", The District Lawyer
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “Discovery”, 1993
• “Extra Coverage or Overkill? Copyright and Design Patent Protection Compared", Intellectual Property Law Journal
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “American Federal Courts”, 1990
• “Protecting U.S. Intellectual Property Rights at the ITC”, Hatsumei Kokai, 1989
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  “The ITC”, 1988
• “Patent Systems in Less Developed Countries: The Cases of India and the Andean Pact Countries,” (with J. Herbert O’Toole) 2 J. of Law and Technology (I.L.I.) 229 (1987)
• Sadao  Kinashi  –  “Shape-Memory Alloy, Mechanism and Applications”, 1987
• "A Decision of the German Federal Patent Court on Patentability of Business-Method-Related Invention: Automatic Sales Control"
• "A Decision of the German Supreme Court on Patentability of Computer-Program-Related Invention: Logic Verification"
• "A Problem in the Current System of Trial for Correction (Sec. 126(1) of the Japanese Patent Law) Indicated by Recent Decisions Made by the Tokyo High Court concerning Actions against Rulings to Revoke Patents, Trial Decisions etc. and a Proposal of Amendments to the Patent Law for Solving the Problem"
• "A Review on Impacts of The Recent Statutory Amendments Concerning Patent Law upon Calculation of Damage Compensation in Litigations for Patent Infringement, Especially Featuring Attorneys Fees, Lost Profits due to Sales Decrease, and Royalty"
• "Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis of Means Claims based on Study of Recent Fed. Cir. Cases"
• "Overview of "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc." and Practices in Light of the Guidelines"
• "Practical Treatment of Means-Plus-Function Claim in Japan and the United States - Claim Construction, Enablement and Definiteness"
• "Ranking of Non-Infringing Substitutes and the Effect on Determination of Damages in U.S. Patent Infringement"
• "The Status Quo, Problems, and Proposals on The Monetary Remedies in Litigations for Patent Infringement"
• “Development of field-responsive polymeric magnetic composite nanofibers by electrospinning,” Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 2005, Vol. 855E, W3.22:1-6.
• “Utilization of moiré interferometry to study the strain distribution within multi-layer, viscoelastic, thermoplastic samples,” Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edition, 2002, Volume 13 Issue 9, 1051-1065
• The Supreme Court’s Decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. and Its Impact on Trademark Strategy Questions
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  アメリカン・ドリーム3000日闘争記－日米特許戦争の狭間で－
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  くたばれアメリカ弁護士―ジョークで知る爆笑訴訟社会
• Mr. Sung-Hoon Kim was officially elected as the 9th President of Korean American IP Bar Association (KAIPBA)
• News-Top Ranking IP Law Firm-Patent, Design and Trademark Registration
• Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  101 Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) pilot program
• Patent and Trademark Office Deferred Subject Matter Response Eligibility
• We are pleased to announce that in 2019, our firm was ranked 11th in utility patent obtained, 24th in design patent obtained and 32nd in trademark registration. See the links below: · the eighth annual US Design Patent Toteboard · the fifth annual US Trademark Registration Toteboard · the fifth annual US Utility Patent Toteboard
• We are pleased to announce Dr. John Wang has been awarded “Excellent patent agent/attorney” for two year in a row by one of our big clients. Dr. Wang’s practice includes patent prosecution in chemical and mechanical arts with a focus on material science, polymers, catalysts, polyelectrolytes, pharmaceuticals, batteries, optics, display panel, virtual reality technology, circuits, and semiconductors.Additionally, Dr. Wang provides legal opinions and counseling on patentability, patent validity, and freedom to operate.
• We are pleased to host four student interns from Tokyo City Universities: Yuto Osada, Kohiro Tada, Takafumi Nakahra and Yuka Sekiya. The students will stay with WHDA for one month before returning to Japan.
• USPTO issues a Memo re: Changes in Examination Procedure
• George Lewis to speak at JTA open meeting on 4/18/18 in Tokyo
  George Lewis to speak at JTA open meeting on 4/18/18 in Tokyo
• 2017 Leading Law Firms Report
  WHDA is named CHAMPIONS OF QUALITY for Industrials in OCEAN TOMO 2017 leading firm report.
• Mr. Alan Cooper was quoted in an article of Daily Report for Executives (BNA), DER Issue No. 165, Bloomberg Law
• Partner Scott Daniels spoke at China-U.S. 337 Investigation Seminar on June 7, 2017.
• WHDA lawyers featured speakers at U.S. Litigation Forum hosted by Beijing Intellectual Property Office on June 6, 2017.
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Recent articles featuring Sung-Hoon Kim
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Mr. Sung-Hoon Kim guest editor for daily IP newspaper called "IPnomics"
• IP Legal Network Annual Meeting scheduled for June 9, 2016 - Detroit Athletic Club
• Mr. Alan Cooper, co-author of A Legal Strategist’s Guide to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Practice (3rd Edition) just published
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 3/24/16
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 2/22 & 2/23/16
• WHDA Trademark Attorneys write portion of INTA treatise
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 1/19 & 1/20/16
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 12/21/15
• Scott Daniels speaks on the latest IPR development at the Chinese Patent Office (SIPO)
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 11/16/15 & 11/17/15
• IP Legal Network Third Annual Legal Conference to be held in Boston, MA on November 11-12, 2015.
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 10/12/15 & 10/13/15
• Ken  I.  Hattori  –  WHDA Monthly Seminar by Ken-Ichi Hattori 9/8/15 & 9/9/15
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Sung-Hoon Kim was a CLE speaker at the Korean Patent Attorneys Association on August 28, 2015
• Alan Cooper and Redskins Trademark
• Alan Cooper joins Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian LLP
• Scott Daniels speaks in China the first week of June, 2015
• Dr. Wang attended Intel ISEF 2015 as a judge in the behavioral and social sciences category 5/11-5/16/15.
• Melchior v Hilite judgment
• John  P.  Kong  –  John Kong was a presenter in the IP Legal Network webinar titled "How to Practice Patent Law After Alice".
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Officials from KIPO and IP Korea Center visit WHDA
• Scott Daniels is speaker for upcoming AIPLA Webinar, "Navigating the Shoals between the PTAB and District Court".
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Mr. Sung-Hoon Kim quoted in October 26, 2014 article by the Electronic Times (Korean publication).
• Stephen B. Parker presented with committee award at AIPLA conference
• Stephen B. Parker speaks at the AIPLA annual conference in Washington, D.C.
• Dr. John Wang is 2014 winner of AIPLA Past President's Award and the Virginia State Bar Award.
• October 28, 2014 - The Women's Bar Association of DC will present a program at the International Trade Commission.
• Stephen B. Parker lectures on Intellectual Property Issues Related to Cyber Security
• Ken  I.  Hattori, Sadao  Kinashi  –  Japanese Patent Office Commissioner visits WHDA 6/20/14
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Sung-Hoon Kim publishes articles in two Korean publications in June, 2014
• Thomas  E.  Brown, Andrew  G.  Melick, Tsuyoshi  Nakamura  –  WHDA successfully defends music video game patent in Inter Partes Reexamination
• Bernadette McGann appointed co-chair of the Women's Bar Association of DC
• Dr. Wang Judge at Intel ISEF
• Mr. Daniels speaks at 2014 AIPLA Conference
• John  P.  Kong  –  Mr. Kong quoted in Law360 5/15/14 article
• Partner to speak at PLI Seminar on Patent Litigation
• USPTO to remain open during U.S. Government shutdown
• Simor  L.  Moskowitz  –  Mr. Moskowitz attends Marques conference in Monte Carlo
• Sung-Hoon  Kim  –  Sung-Hoon Kim Speaks at KAIPBA’s bimonthly seminar
• George  W.  Lewis  –  Mr. Lewis recently attended conference in Brazil
• Speech given during recent IPO Webinar
• Bernadette McGann Appointed Women's Bar Association IP Forum Co-Chair
• Sung-Hoon Kim selected as treasurer of KAIPBA
• F2 Seminar Materials now available
• Announcement Re AIA and fee increase
• Ken-Ichi Hattori publishes new book on AIA
• WHDA ranked among Top 25 patent firms in USA
• WHDA welcomes four new attorneys