Did construction work, washed dishes, programmed, scientific research, engineering. Now practicing in patents. Retweets/Follows are not endorsements.
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 Timothy Bianchi
Preexamination III: Conception, Inventorship, and the Limits of Landscape
U.S. inventorship requires invention and invention requires conception.
USPTO Announces Automated Search Pilot Program
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced an Automated Search Pilot Program in the Federal Register on October 8, 2025. This initiative evaluates the effects of providing AI-generated search results prior to substantive examination of original, noncontinuing, nonprovisional utility patent applications.
Federal Circuit Mandamus- Petitioners Target PTAB's Discretionary
In a series of recent filings before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, petitioners including Motorola Solutions, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SanDisk Technologies, Inc., Western Digital Technologies, Inc., and HighLevel, Inc. are pressing for writs of mandamus to overturn PTAB denials of inter partes review (IPR) institution.
USPTO Withdraws Proposed Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Rules
Skip to main content December 04, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 339 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
Federal Circuit Weighs in on Exceptional Case Determinations in Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV and Dish
A recent Federal Circuit decision provided some additional insight into exceptional case determinations in patent infringement disputes. In Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Sling TV, the Federal Circuit reviewed an award of attorneys’ fees granted to DISH and related Sling entities (collectively, DISH) by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, L.L.C. , Fed. Cir., 23-1035, vacated 8/23/24.
Federal Circuit Court Review if Preamble is Limiting or Not
It’s 2024, but patent attorneys and judges still can’t agree whether a preamble is limiting or not. One recent district court case tees up this issue in style. District court Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly was presented the issue of whether the preamble “a vaccine” was limiting or not in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer et al., Docket No. 1:22-cv-00336 (D.Del. Mar 17, 2022). There’s a lot to unpack in this relatively binary determination.
Updates in Robotics Industry in 2022
Legal Disclaimer You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only.
What’s Important in Intellectual Property in 2022?
Tuesday, December 14, 2021 With all that is going on in world events and a pandemic that has raged on for over a year, it’s hard to focus on intellectual property as an important topic to discuss. But we must because innovation has carried on and patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets are still valuable assets that have to be pursued and managed.
Sawstop II Patent Term Adjustment Discussion
Friday, September 17, 2021 Sawstop Holding LLC v. Hirshfeld, No. 1:20-cv-1212(LMB/LSN), 2021 WL 2021122 (E.D. Va. May 20, 2021) (“Sawstop II”). Holding The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Acting PTO Director Hirshfeld’s motion for summary judgment.
Prosecution Guidance from the Fed. Cir. – How to Forfeit Arguments During Your Appeal
November 17, 2020 Prosecution Guidance from the Fed. Cir. – How to Forfeit Arguments... by: Timothy Bianchi Lewis Court Rejects the Use of the Collateral Source Rule to... by: Katherine Peluso and Jeffrey Skinner Biden Trade Policy by: Government Law & Policy Tavern’s COVID-19 Coverage Complaint Survives Preliminary Objection by: Robert M. Travisano Part 27 of the “The Restricting Covenant Series”: Disgorgement by: Lawrence J.
A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Finding of Unpatentability Without Remand in DSS v. Apple
In DSS Technology Management v. Apple Inc., a split panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of patentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or the Board), but did so without remanding the case back to the Board for further findings. In DSS, the Federal Circuit considered two inter partes review decisions finding claims of a patent owned by DSS unpatentable for obviousness. (Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., No. IPR2015-00369 (P.T.A.B. June 17, 2016) (Apple I); Apple Inc. v.
Complex Claim Construction Issues in Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic
A recent Federal Circuit case demonstrates the complexity of resolving difficult claim construction issues in multiple agency and court proceedings. In Knowles Electronics v. Cirrus Logic the Federal Circuit declined to apply its own prior claim interpretation of the same term of the same claims of the same patent.
Shire’s Granted Motion to Amend Offers Additional Insight Into PTAB Amendment Practice
When a patent undergoes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Patent Owner has an opportunity to file a motion to amend claims so that a substitute claim can be proposed for each claim sought to be amended. Stakeholders, and even some jurists, have been critical of the PTAB for denying the majority of motions to amend, but every once in a while one is granted by the PTAB. In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited. v.
ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco IPR Petitions
ChanBond sued several cable company defendants alleging patent infringement of three wideband signal distribution system patents in the District of Delaware in 2015. The defendants included Atlantic Broadband Group, Bright House Networks, Cable One, Cablevision, Cequel Communications, Charter Communications, Comcast Communications, Cox Communications, Mediacom Communications, RCN Telecom Services, Time Warner Cable, WaveDivision Holdings, and Wideopen West Finance (District of Delaware case nos.
PTAB Narrows Its Preliminary Claim Interpretation To Uphold Cellular Patent
In July, 2014 Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”). In February, 2015, the Board instituted trial on claims 1 and 2 based on obviousness grounds, but denied institution of obviousness grounds for claims 8-12 and 18-22.
PTAB Dismisses Three IPR Petitions Based on Sovereign Immunity
Covidien LP had a license to U.S. Patent 7,062,251, owned by the University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF, Patent Owner). UFRF alleged breach of contract by Covidien, and sued Covidien in Florida state court for breach of license. Covidien counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe the ’251 patent, and removed the action to federal court. In June of 2016, Covidien (Petitioner) filed three petitions seeking inter partes review (IPR) of the ’251 patent.
Are Patent-Friendly PTAB Decisions On the Rise?
Patent litigation changed with passage of the America Invents Act. Overnight the PTAB became a new venue for challenging patent claims using IPRs, CBMs and PGRs. The initial reaction by the patent bar to the PTAB’s “take charge” approach to instituting review and canceling patent claims was met with approval by businesses under attack by patent trolls and with disdain by patent owners whose patents would have likely sailed through the assertion before the AIA.
Could Pro-Football v. Blackhorse Be a Knock-Out Punch to Trademark Law?
Now is an exciting time, because political correctness and trademark law are clashing like never before. Two cases involving starkly different facts have recently petitioned for writ of certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court, which ask whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. The cases are Lee v. Tam[1] and Pro-Football v.
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 Timothy
Contact Timothy, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack