Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Anna Phillips
U.S. IP Update – August 2025 | JD Supra
Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes, and trends impacting patents, trademarks, and other IP rights in the United States. Thank you for your readership.
Patent Licensing & Standing: A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Indus. Private Ltd. (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2024) | JD Supra
2025 Summer Associate Colton Diges contributed to this article. In the United States, a plaintiff must have standing to bring suit in U.S. courts.
Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., 84 F.4th 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Dyk, Reyna (dissenting), Stark) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
In Great Concepts, the court addressed whether Section 14 of the Lanham Act, which permits cancellation of a mark’s registration if “its registration was obtained fraudulently,” permits cancellation due to the owner’s filing of a fraudulent declaration submitted for the purpose of acquiring incontestability status for an already-registered mark. The court held that it does not. Great Concepts obtained a registered trademark for “DANTANNA’S” for a “steak and seafood restaurant” in 2005.
Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): In re: PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, 85 F.4th 1148 (2023) (Lourie, Dyk (dissenting), Reyna) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
PersonalWeb—the third appeal from a multidistrict litigation involving alleged infringement of PersonalWeb’s patents—addressed two issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and (2) whether the district court erred in calculating an award of attorneys’ fees. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either respect.
What practitioners need to know about patent invalidity at the Federal Circuit
What practitioners need to know about patent invalidity at the Federal Circuit Register for limited access Register to receive our newsletter and gain limited access to subscriber content. Register now Subscribe to unlock unlimited access Get news, unique commentary, expert analysis and essential resources from the IAM experts. Subscribe now Already have access?
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Newman, Stoll, Cunningham) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
In 2008, McDonald filed a patent application for methods and systems related to the display of primary and secondary search results in response to search queries. The examiner rejected McDonald’s original application as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. To overcome this rejection, McDonald amended the claims to add a “processor” to certain claim limitations. As a result, the examiner withdrew the § 101 rejection and the application issued as the ’901 patent.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, 28 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Prost (concurring), Reyna, Hughes) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
Here, Hunting Titan petitioned for IPR of DynaEnergetics’ ’422 patent, asserting that the patent was anticipated in light of the Schacherer reference. The Board instituted the IPR and found all original claims unpatentable as anticipated by Schacherer. After institution, DynaEnergetics moved to amend the patent to add substitute claims. Hunting Titan opposed the motion based only on obviousness, not that Schacherer anticipated the proposed substitute claims.
[Webinar] Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions - February 2nd, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST | JD Supra
In conjunction with the release of the firm's year-in-review report, speakers will offer case summaries and analysis of the significant 2022 appellate rulings discussed in the report.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions: Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., 6 F.4th 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2021) | JD Supra
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm Inc. agreed the signals described by the term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” must increase user bandwidth. The increased bandwidth requirement had already been adopted in a parallel International Trade Commission (ITC) proceeding.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Anna
Contact Anna, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack