For years, the Northern District of Illinois has served as the hub for “Schedule A” cases—mass actions against online sellers premised on allegations of counterfeiting across ecommerce platforms. Notably, the parties being sued in this case were only identified in a document filed under seal on a so-called “Schedule…
Publications
Irwin IP Publications is the go-to resource for the latest updates and insights in the world of intellectual property. Over 250 articles are published on cases addressing unique issues, all of which can be found using the search tool below. Additionally, there is a collection of articles/papers and presentations that cover a wide range of topics. Whether you’re a legal professional, business owner, or simply someone passionate about IP, our publications page will provide you with all the knowledge needed to navigate this dynamic field.
What went wrong is plain from the record. Phillips 66 courted Propel, obtained deep access to Propel’s models and strategy during diligence, and repeatedly signaled that a deal was on track. Inside Phillips 66, however, executives debated a “go it alone” pivot while still drawing on Propel’s information. The…
In patent cases, successful patent owners can obtain an injunction against an infringer to prevent the infringer from making, using, and selling the infringing product in the United States. Recently, there has been a lot of press questioning whether a district court sitting in one circuit (which may arguably…
The USPTO must reject a patent application if the applicant’s claim covers what the prior art already disclosed, and patent applicants may respond to such rejections with arguments that what they claimed was different. Prosecution history disclaimer (i.e. ‘disclaimer by argument’) prohibits patent applicants from arguing to the USPTO…
Over a decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court arguably made it easier to invalidate a patent for claiming nonpatentable abstract ideas when it established a two-step test for evaluating whether patent claims are drawn to patentable subject matter, referred to as the Alice/Mayo framework. In short, the test requires…
Written by Irwin IP attorneys Joseph Marinelli and Bailey Sanders, this article explores a pivotal issue in patent litigation—the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Since inter partes review (IPR) was introduced in 2012, courts have grappled with how far estoppel reaches in barring district court defendants from…
In 1984, acclaimed composer Jay Livingston assigned his interests in numerous musical compositions, including the classics “Silver Bells” and “Que Sera, Sera” to a publishing company called Jay Livingston Music (“JLM”). In 1985, Jay created a family trust, transferring to it his royalty rights flowing from the JLM transfer,…
In Bartz et al. v. Anthropic, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California considered whether Anthropic’s use of copyrighted books—many sourced from pirated libraries, others destructively scanned from purchased print copies—to train its Claude AI models qualified as fair use. The court held that the latter…
The Northern District of Illinois (“NDIL”) has been a hotbed for “Schedule A” litigation—a legal tactic often used by intellectual property (“IP”) owners to crack down on online counterfeiters by filing a single complaint against sometimes hundreds of alleged defendants. NDIL Judge John Kness, however, recently stayed dozens of…
On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart exercised her authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to grant Welch Allyn’s (“Patent Owner”) request to discretionarily deny institution of five inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by iRhythm Technologies (“Petitioner”). The USPTO…
When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others are found invalid. In Power2B v. Samsung, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a decision of…
On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit en banc banished the notion that the reliability of an expert’s methodology under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”) is a question of weight, not admissibility. The en banc Court vacated a jury’s award of over $20 million in damages and…
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) conception ruling in favor of Broad Institute, MIT, and Harvard College (collectively “Broad”) and against the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively “Regents”). The…
The USPTO Director’s recent decision in Semiconductor Components v. Greenthread squarely addresses a recurring procedural issue in inter partes reviews: what happens when a patent owner is denied discovery into privity and then faulted for failing to prove it? In vacating the PTAB’s final written decisions, the Director sent…
If you’re a startup founder, innovator, or creative professional, understanding your intellectual property is essential to protecting and growing your business. In this presentation, Irwin IP attorneys will break down patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and how each can add value to your business—including emerging issues around IP and…
The ™️ and ©️ symbols are more than just formalities – used correctly, they can be a competitive edge for your brand! Learn how to build business success and brand equity with Irwin IP attorneys Jason Keener and Suet Lee….
On April 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit adopted a test from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) for determining whether a color mark is generic. Under the test, the Federal Circuit affirmed that a color mark for medical examination gloves did not function as a source indicator, lacked…
The Digital Replica Accountability and Identity Protection Act Preamble Purpose: To protect individuals against the unauthorized creation and distribution of realistic digital deepfakes – computer-generated replicas of a person’s name, image, voice, or likeness – while safeguarding free expression, artistic creativity, and technological innovation. This Act establishes clear personal…
The estoppel provision of the American Invents Act (AIA) (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) prevents a petitioner in an inter parties review (IPR) proceeding from later raising before the Patent Office, a district court, or the International Trade Commission any invalidity “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised”…