Harness Dickey
  • People
  • Global IP Services
    • Practice Areas
    • Industries
    • Case Studies
  • Blog
  • News & Awards
  • About Us
    • Careers
    • Offices
  • IP Atlas
  • Contact Us
  • Client Login

Blog

Subscribe to our Blogs

  • Subscribe to our Blogs

Our business model is to cultivate lawyers who know all there is to know about intellectual property, whether it be special requirements under the America Invents Act (AIA), patenting chemical compositions and pharmaceuticals, current developments in software patenting, or combating “bad patents” in federal court litigation.  Lawyers from our various practice groups enjoy sharing their views in our blogs. Please join our audience and help us enrich the discussion. We welcome your participation and insight.

  • Litigation

      ALL CATEGORIES

      • Biologics & Biosimilars
        • Antitrust Issues
        • Competitor Dynamics
        • FDA Guidance & Updates
        • Interchangeability
      • BioPharma
      • Chemistry & Nanotechnology
      • IP Management
      • IPR-PGR
      • Litigation
      • Patent Prosecution
      • quIPs
      • Trademarks
  • All Years
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
    • 2010
    • 2009
  • Authors
    • John H. Ambrose, Jr.John H. Ambrose, Jr. 2
    • Jewell N. BriggsJewell N. Briggs 8
    • Elizabeth K. BrockElizabeth K. Brock 7
    • Christopher M. CaubleChristopher M. Cauble 1
    • Matthew L. CutlerMatthew L. Cutler 15
    • Donald J. DaleyDonald J. Daley 1
    • Nicholas S. DrysdaleNicholas S. Drysdale 7
    • Monte L. FalcoffMonte L. Falcoff 1
    • Glenn E. ForbisGlenn E. Forbis 11
    • Michael GambleMichael Gamble 1
    • Jason A. HeistJason A. Heist 1
    • Hemant M. KeskarHemant M. Keskar 4
    • Sung Pil KimSung Pil Kim 1
    • Elisabeth A. KoralElisabeth A. Koral 10
    • Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D.Damian H. Kotsis, Ph.D. 4
    • Kisuk LeeKisuk Lee 1
    • Robert J. LenihanRobert J. Lenihan 1
    • Chris K. MillerChris K. Miller 1
    • Michael R. NyeMichael R. Nye 1
    • Joshua A. PartingtonJoshua A. Partington 4
    • Leanne M. RakersLeanne M. Rakers 15
    • Douglas A. RobinsonDouglas A. Robinson 15
    • Joel R. SamuelsJoel R. Samuels 14
    • Jeffrey L. SnyderJeffrey L. Snyder 1
    • David L. SuterDavid L. Suter 2
    • Michael L. TaylorMichael L. Taylor 1
    • Jennifer R. TurchynJennifer R. Turchyn 4
    • Michael VarcoMichael Varco 3
    • Joseph E. Walsh, Jr.Joseph E. Walsh, Jr. 1
    • Andrew M. WaxmanAndrew M. Waxman 2
    • Bryan K. WheelockBryan K. Wheelock 15
    • Jennifer M. Woodside WojtalaJennifer M. Woodside Wojtala 13
    • Scott E. YackeyScott E. Yackey 1
    • Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D.Paul E. Zarek, Ph.D. 3

  • December 26, 2019

    Points of Difference from Prior Art Did Not Make it to the Claims; Claims were Anticipated

    More

  • December 25, 2019

    Patents for a Merry Christmas!

    More

  • Intellectual Property Law Blog

    December 19, 2019

    Award of Attorneys’ Fees Hinges on a Finding of an Exceptional Case, Not an Exceptional Part of a Case

    More

  • December 18, 2019

    Patent Owner’s Praise for Other Inventions Destroyed Presumption of Nexus between Commercial Product and Claims

    More

  • December 18, 2019

    It is Importation that Infringes under 35 USC § 271(g), Not Manufacture

    More

  • December 16, 2019

    Plaintiff Who Dismissed Patent Infringement Case Still Must Pay Defendant’s Attorneys’ Fees

    More

December 26, 2019

Points of Difference from Prior Art Did Not Make it to the Claims; Claims were Anticipated

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Intellectual Property Law Blog

December 19, 2019

Award of Attorneys’ Fees Hinges on a Finding of an Exceptional Case, Not an Exceptional Part of a Case

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

December 18, 2019

Patent Owner’s Praise for Other Inventions Destroyed Presumption of Nexus between Commercial Product and Claims

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

December 18, 2019

It is Importation that Infringes under 35 USC § 271(g), Not Manufacture

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

December 16, 2019

Plaintiff Who Dismissed Patent Infringement Case Still Must Pay Defendant’s Attorneys’ Fees

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

December 16, 2019

Substantial Evidence Supported Jury Verdict that not all Infringing Uses were Reasonably Related to Developing and Submitting Information to the FDA

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

December 12, 2019

Yabba Dabba Don’t — “Bedrock Principle” Prevents USPTO from Recouping Attorneys Fees

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

November 8, 2019

Board Erred in Finding Reference Was Not Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem Facing the Inventor

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

November 7, 2019

Petitioner Allowed to Supplement Evidence that Reference was Available

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Harness Dickey IP Litigation PTAB Proceedings

October 31, 2019

Federal Circuit Gives the PTAB an Inferiority Complex

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

October 30, 2019

Synthesizing and Screening Thousands of Candidate Compounds Constitutes Undue Experimentation

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Harness Dickey IP Lawyers

October 9, 2019

Oral Arguments in Peter v. NantKwest Suggest History and SCOTUS Favor Applicant’s Position that Attorneys’ Fees Are Not “Expenses”

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Harness Dickey Patent Litigation PTAB Review

October 4, 2019

Hope is not Enough to Create a Reasonable Expectation of Success

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

October 3, 2019

When They Came for My Software and Medicine, I did Nothing; “Monstrous” Law Now Targets Mechanical Arts

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Harness Dickey patent Attorneys Detroit St. Louis Dallas Washington, DC

September 25, 2019

Board Misreads Features of the Claims, Fails to Appreciate a Technical Solution to a Technical Problem

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

September 12, 2019

Federal Circuit Holds that a Basket is Not a Chair

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

September 12, 2019

Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Supported PTAB’s Finding of Non-obviousness

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

mage of cracked light bulb to denote IP legal dispute

August 16, 2019

Patent Eligibility Can be Determined on the Pleadings, Provided Claim Construction is Not at Issue

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

August 16, 2019

Liberal Application of Relation Back Doctrine Saved Infringement Claims from Being Time Barred

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

August 14, 2019

Any Compound May Look Obvious Once Someone Has Made it, But Federal Circuit Rejects Convoluted Obviousness Argument

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

Posts navigation

1 2 … 5 Load more posts

Stay current

  • Subscribe to our Blogs
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
    • Sitemap
    • Privacy Statement
    • Legal Notice

  • © 2020 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. All rights reserved.