Litigation

Group at a Glance

  • 32 members
  • Industries we have litigated in include: software, medical devices, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, internet services, consumer products, financial services, sporting goods, photography, industrial hardware, home products, CT scanning, and telephony

What Matters to Our Clients

Experts on the Law and Technology

Intellectual property disputes often have complex scientific and technical questions at their core. Understanding the law, therefore, is only part of a winning formula. To make critical split-second decisions in the courtroom, or successfully impeach a well-prepared expert, litigators must have a fluency in the technology involved.

At Wolf Greenfield, we don't just have the patent law expertise but also the technical and scientific skills and industry experience needed to give our clients a home field advantage in any courtroom. We’ve mastered the art of guiding a judge or jury through technical complexities to understand the core of a dispute. Our litigators are not just advocates, but also teachers: we teach the judge and jury the principles necessary to understand the case, so as to help reach a successful outcome. Our technical depth also allows us to think one step ahead of our opponents in creating aggressive trial strategies and in choosing the optimal time and venue for litigation.

Because our Litigation Group has access to the expertise of every patent attorney and technology specialist in the firm, we are able to master a broad spectrum of subject matters. We have worked on cases involving everything from surgical devices to financial services software to lighting fixtures to snowboards. We have successfully litigated against some of the largest law firms in the country and against some of the largest corporations in the world, and our clients have emerged with market-moving victories.

Staying Focused on Business Goals

Our primary focus in developing any litigation strategy is to understand the client’s needs and long range business goals. Every litigation decision stems from those business goals, and they guide each strategic and tactical move along the way. We partner with clients and take the time to understand their businesses so our legal skill and experience becomes part of their resources.

Not every dispute calls for a lawsuit. In situations where litigation could adversely affect a client’s market position, we counsel the most effective ways to avoid litigation. When litigation is inevitable, we counsel on how to strategically time it, budget for it, and select the most favorable venue.

With a solid understanding of our clients’ businesses and the industries in which they operate, our litigators are able to weigh the consequences before the pursuit begins, and re-evaluate it at each point along the way. Our litigators are also experienced in resolving disputes through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

Landmark Decisions

Members of our Litigation Group have successfully argued some of the seminal intellectual property decisions of our times. These include the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Co., which became a historic case on the doctrine of permissible repair and related issues. We also won a landmark case on the types of evidence courts may consider for patent claim construction, and defeated State Street Bank in the Federal Circuit case that established the patentability of business methods and software-implemented inventions.

We are equally as successful in other venues. Our Litigation Group won the longest patent interference proceeding in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office history over vascular graft technology, and we won the largest jury verdict in a trade secret case in Massachusetts history. In 2007, we also won the largest jury award for a patent case in Massachusetts, in Diomed v. AngioDynamics and Vascular Solutions.

Experience in Various Forums

Our Litigation Group members have experience arguing cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as other circuit courts of appeal across the country, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. Our group handles jury and bench trials in numerous federal district courts and appears before other IP dispute forums including the U.S. Patent Board of Appeals and Interferences, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as well as arbitration tribunals such as the National Arbitration Forum, the American Arbitration Association, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Broad Scope of Practice

We represent both plaintiffs and defendants in virtually every kind of IP claim or cause of action including:

Effective Case Staffing

Clients appreciate our ability to staff cases in the manner most suited to the client's business and litigation goals. In many instances, lean staffing provides a focused and cost-effective approach, with one shareholder heading the core team, supported by a single associate and paralegal. As New England's largest IP-only firm, however, we also have the capacity to field a large and sophisticated team from day one, or to ramp up from a core team as needed during busy periods on a particular case. 

Our Litigation Group draws on an experienced and sophisticated support structure of paralegals, IT specialists, as well as members of Wolf Greenfield's technical practice groups as needed, to ensure that our resources are tailored to each client's litigation needs.

Representative Cases

View All

Patent Cases

Interferences

Trademark Cases

Copyright Cases

Trade Secret Cases

Licensing / Contract Cases

View All Group Members

-
Representative Group Clients
  • athenahealth, Inc.
  • Burton Snowboards
  • C.R. Bard, Inc.
  • Davol, Inc.
  • EMC Corporation
  • Infineon Technologies
  • InterSystems Corporation
  • Jackson Laboratory
  • Keurig, Incorporated
  • L-3 Communications Corporation
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • McAfee, Inc.
  • MStar Semiconductor, Inc.
  • Sony Corporation
  • Staples, Inc.
  • Sun Life
  • The New York Times Company
  • Verizon Wireless
Newsstand
March 2014 - CRISPR/Cas-9: An Exciting Addition to Genomic Editing

January 1, 2014 - Charlie Steenburg quoted in Law360 on Highmark v. Allcare and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health

January 1, 2014 - Greg Corbett quoted in Law360 regarding people's desire to rein in non-practicing entities

March 5, 2014 - Doug Wolf featured as the Entrepreneur.com expert for the month of March

February 26, 2014 - Charlie Steenburg quoted in Managing IP on Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Highmark v. Allcare

February 21, 2014 - John Strand quoted in Law360 on Federal Circuit en banc decision in Lighting Ballast case

February 14, 2014 - Anderson Duff quoted in BBJ regarding Internet TV startup Aereo vs. the broadcasters

February 2014 - The New World of Diagnostic Testing Post-Myriad

January 2014 - Mike Rader Moderated a Panel at the AIPLA 2014 Winter Institute in Phoenix, AZ.

Network Signatures v. State Farm (decided 9/24/13) - Federal Circuit Stirs Up Questions about Unintentionally Delayed Maintenance Fee Payments

Novozymes v. DuPont Nutrition (decided 7/22/13) - Written Description Precludes Fishing Expedition

February 2014 - To Predict How the Board Will Decide Issues in Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Look to Prior Board Decisions in Contested Cases

October 2013 - Justification for post-grant procedures continues to mount

February 2014 - Wolf Greenfield Secures Summary Judgment Victory for Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Keurig, and Starbucks

February 5, 2014 - WOLF GREENFIELD WEBCAST REPLAY: CRISPR/Cas-9 and the IP Landscape for a Revolutionary New Technology

January 2014 - Wolf Greenfield Secures Litigation Victory for Ascion LLC

December 3, 2013 - Bob Abrahamsen quoted on settlement of patent suit against Vanguard

Commil USA v. Cisco Systems (decided 6/25/13) - Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity May Negate Intent for Induced Infringement

October 21, 2013 - Fifteen Wolf Greenfield Lawyers Named to 2013 Massachusetts Rising Stars List

October 21, 2013 - Twenty Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Selected to 2013 Massachusetts Super Lawyers List

Raylon v. Complus Data Innovations (12/7/12) - Unreasonable Claim Construction Arguments Can Be Basis for Attorneys’ Fees Under Rule 11

Ultramercial v. Hulu (6/21/13) - Web Advertising Technique Found Patent-Eligible

Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals (5/20/13) - Consider Confidentially Measures When Using Inventions in Clinical Trials

Aventis Pharma v. Amino Chemicals (decided 5/20/13 - Claim Terms Can Be Construed to Have More than One Meaning

October 21, 2013 - Mike Rader was a Panelist at the MIT Enterprise Forum RFID/NFC Circle Event

October 17, 2013 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: Strategically Building a Valuable Worldwide Patent Portfolio - Replay Now Available

October 9, 2013 - Tackling Unreasonably Broad Claim Constructions: A Little-Known Tool To Help Accused Infringers Keep Patent Holders Honest

September 12, 2013 - Chelsea Loughran and Patrick Waller present at Cowen and Company Medtools Unlocked Conference in NYC

September 3, 2013 - Bob Abrahamsen quoted on Fidelity's alleged infringement suit.

August 27, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Secures Dismissal of Case Against Our Client Six Victor

August 16, 2013 - Five Intellectual Property “Landmines” Startups Face

August 15, 2013 - Ten Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to The Best Lawyers in America 2014 List

August 2013 - Rainmaker Q&A: Wolf Greenfield's Edward Gates

August 8, 2013 - Obama Administration Stops ITC Ban on iPhones and iPads

InterDigital v. Nokia (8/1/12) - Caution Needed When Using Terms of Art in Patent Claims

In re Steve Morsa (4/5/13) - Applicants Can Challenge Enablement of References Cited by Patent Examiners

Santarus v. Par Pharmaceutical (9/4/12) - Federal Circuit Addresses Written Description for Negative Claim Limitations and Clarifies Obviousness for CIP Applications

LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer (8/30/12) - Federal Circuit Knocks Out Expert’s Application of Entire Market Value Rule in Damages Calculation

August 2, 2013 - Greg Corbett quoted on ban of older Apple products

August 2013 - Q&A With Wolf Greenfield’s Mike Rader

In Re Applied Materials, Inc (8/29/12) - How to Overcome Obviousness Rejections Based on Results-Effective Variables

Louboutin v. YSL (9/5/12) - Single Colors That Have Acquired Distinctiveness May Serve as Trademarks in Fashion Industry

July 31, 2013 - Brand Marketers: Beware of False Advertising

K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp. (9/6/12) - Using the Non-Analogous Art Doctrine to Combat Obviousness

July 2013 - Q&A With Wolf Greenfield’s Rich Giunta

July 10, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield’s Litigation Team Secures Dismissal of Patent Lawsuit Against Our Client E Ink

June 17, 2013 - Greg Corbett quoted in Law360 on pay-for-delay settlements.

June 14, 2013 - IP ALERT - Supreme Court Says Isolated Natural DNA Not Patent Eligible But Leaves Open Questions Regarding Synthetic DNAs

June 14, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted in Law360 on gene patenting.

June 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to IAM 1000 World’s Leading Patent Practitioners List

June 13, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted on the Myriad decision.

May 13, 2013 - CLIENT ALERT— Supreme Court’s Bowman Decision Addresses Self-Replicating Technologies

May 3, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Achieves Dismissal of Patent Action

Preston v. Marathon Oil (7/10/12) - IP Assignment Clauses May be Enforceable Without Additional Consideration

DuoPross v. Inviro (8/14/12) - Single Element May Not be Enough to Prevent Finding of Descriptiveness

April 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Associate Named “Up and Coming” Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams (6/22/12) - Influence of Secondary Considerations in Overcoming Prima Facie Case of Obviousness

April 24, 2013 - WOLF GREENFIELD WEBINAR: Key Patent Litigation Decisions and the ITC as Alternate Forum - Replay Now Available

April 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Tops the Boston Business Journal’s List of Largest Area Intellectual Property Law Firms

April 10, 2013 - Larry Green quoted in Biopharminsight on Idenix

April 10, 2013 - Rob Walat quoted in Mass High Tech

March 22, 2013 - Ed Walsh quoted on "first-inventor-to-file" changes

March 22, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted on the "First-Inventor-to File" system

March 11, 2013 - Patrick Waller quoted in Law360 on first-to-file patent system

February 21, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Attorney Recognized for Pro Bono Service by Women’s Bar Foundation

February 12, 2013 - Deadline approaches for patent protections

Aspex v. Revolution (3/14/2012) - Will Your Settlement Agreement Prevent You from Later Asserting Your Patent Rights?

February 5, 2013 - Wolf Greenfield Named Elite Trademark Law Firm in World Trademark Report 1000

January 29, 2013 - Preparing for the “First Inventor to File” Transition

January 18, 2013 - Ed Walsh was quoted in a Law360 article on Patent Reform

October 22, 2012 - Fifteen Wolf Greenfield Lawyers Highlighted in 2012 Massachusetts Super Lawyers List

October 18, 2012 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: What You Need to Know to Prepare for the "First Inventor to File" Transition - Replay Now Available

September 19, 2012 - Eleven Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Selected for 2013 Best Lawyers in America®

September 10, 2012 - Vanguard Fights Trio of Patent Trolls

September 6, 2012 - Federal Circuit Establishes New Standard on Divided Infringement and Inducement

July 27, 2012 - Chelsea Loughran quoted in Law360 on the new First-To-File rules

June 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Named to IAM 1000 World’s Leading Patent Practitioners List

June 2012 - GBLS Recognizes Wolf Greenfield with 2012 Associates Drive Award

In re Constr. Equip. Co. (decided 12/8/2011) - Reexamination Finding of Invalidity Upheld by Federal Circuit Years After Litigation Holding of No Invalidity

June 14, 2012 - ITC Affirms Wolf Greenfield Victory

June 4, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield’s Litigation Group Grows With the Addition of Three New Members

April 26, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Named Top Trademark Law Firm by World Trademark Report’s WTR 1000

In re MSTG, Inc (4/9/12) - No Settlement Negotiations Privilege

Noah Systems v. Intuit (4/9/12) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Algorithm Disclosure Requirements for Means-Plus-Function Claims

Aventis Pharma v. Hospira (4/9/12) - Federal Circuit Finds Inequitable Conduct For Failure To Cite Prior Art Under the Heightened Therasense Standard

AFT Trust. v. J&L Fiber (4/3/12) - Prosecution History Can Be Used During Claim Construction

March 26, 2012 - IP ALERT - Supreme Court Invalidates Process Claims in Prometheus

Bridgestone, LLC v. Federal Corp. (dec. 3/16/12) - Federal Circuit Takes Another Look at Likelihood of Confusion

March 15, 2012 - Mike Rader Moderated a Panel at the Annual Meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers

Marine Polymer v. HemCon (decided 3/15/12) - Intervening Rights Cannot Be Triggered by Argument Alone in Reexaminations

In re Erik P. Staats and Robin P. Lash (3/5/2012) - Federal Circuit Rejects Restrictions on Broadening Claims in Reissue Applications

MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corporation (3/2/2012) - Federal Circuit Muddies Waters Over Claim Construction and Section 101

Coach Services v Triumph Learning (2/21/12) - What “Fame” Means in the Likelihood of Confusion and Dilution Contexts

ClearValue v Pearl River Polymers (2/17/12) - A Range With No Special Features Can Anticipate Sub-range

In re Google, Inc. (decided 2/6/12) - Substance of Emails Determines Attorney-Client Privilege Protection

February 1, 2012 - Do Opinions of Counsel Still Matter After Patent Reform? Absolutely!

January 31, 2012 - Navigating Patent Eligibility for Process Claims

Dealertrack v. David L. Huber et al. (1/20/12) - Lack of Detail in Software-Related Claims Can Mean Invalidity

January 18, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield wins ITC action

January 17, 2012 - Mike Rader presented at American Intellectual Property Law Association

December 2011 - Neil Ferraro Named 2012 Boston Patent Law Association President

January 3, 2012 - Wolf Greenfield Welcomes 2012 Promoting Seven Lawyers to New Positions

December 28, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield Achieves Pro Bono Victory in Asylum Case

December 2011 - Recent Developments in Patent Litigation: Important Court Decisions and Their Intersection With the Patent Reform Act Webinar- Replay Now Available

December 2011 - ITC Patent Litigation on a Budget

November 2011 - America Invents Act: The Implications of Patent Reform

Powell v Home Depot (11/14/11) - False Petition Does Not Constitute Inequitable Conduct

November 8, 2011 - IP: 3 Keys to Teaching Patents to Judges

October 2011 - 3 Strategies for Winning Patent Cases

October 13, 2011 - IP: Winning Patent Litigation on a Budget

October 12, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield Sponsored MIT Forum Event on October 12

TianRui Group. Co. v. ITC (decided 10/11/11) - ITC Can Find Trade Secret Law Violation Where Acts Occur Outside US

In re Stepan (decided 10/5/11) - BPAI Triggers “New Ground of Rejection” When Changing Statutory Basis of Rejection

September 2011 - America Invents Act – Patent Reform is Finally Here

In re Leithem (decided 9/19/11) - BPAI Can Trigger “New Ground of Rejection” Through Change in Rationale Alone

Ultramercial v. Hulu (decided 9/15/11) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits on Patent-Eligibility of Software Patents

September 2011 - Pre-Litigation Strategies to Ensure a “Home Court” Advantage

September 9, 2011 - IP ALERT—Senate Endorses The Long-Awaited Patent Reform

September 2011 - Eight Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Receive Best Lawyers in America Title

Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher Ltd (decided 9/9/11) - Same Claim Terms Can Have Different Meanings Within Different Limitations

Classen v. Biogen Idec (decided 8/31/11) - Process Claims With Physical Implementation Steps May Be Patent-Eligible

AIA Engineering v Magotteaux (decided 8/31/11) - Federal Circuit Muddies Reissue Application Practice

Unigene Laboratories v. Apotex (decided 8/25/11) - Follow-on Pharmaceutical Formulation Found Non-Obvious

August Technology v. Camtek (decided 8/22/11) - Inventions Cannot be Offered For Sale Until Conception Date

August 16, 2011 - National Institutes of Health Intervenes to End Patent Infringement Suit Against The Jackson Laboratory Concerning Mouse Models for Alzheimer’s Research

CyberSource v. Retail Decisions (decided 8/16/11) - Processes Equivalent to "Human Mental Work” Not Patent-Eligible

In Re NTP, Inc. (decided 8/1/11) - Priority Chain Can Be Broken if Parent Application Has No Written Description Support for Claims Under Reexamination

In Re NTP, Inc. [2] (decided 8/1/11) - Inventor’s Own Testimony Cannot Corroborate Evidence of Earlier Invention Date

In re Jeff Lovin (decided 7/22/11) - Appeal Briefs Must Contain Substantive Arguments for Claims Considered Separately

Duramed v. Paddock (decided 7/21/11) - Prosecution History Estoppel Bars Allegations of Infringement Under Doctrine of Equivalents

General Protecht Group v. Leviton (decided 7/8/11) - Avoiding Implied Licenses Linked to Continuation Patents

June 27, 2011 - Eric Kaviar interviewed by WIN Interactive

American Calcar v. American Honda (dec. 6/27/11) - Narrow Disclosure Limits Claim Scope

June 20, 2011 - Jim Foster was a panelist for a webinar on the Therasense decision

June 9, 2011 - Should You Litigate? What To Do When A Patent Infringement Action Appears On The Horizon

June 9, 2011 - IP Lawyers Weigh In On Microsoft V. I4i Ruling

Microsoft v. i4i (decided 6/9/11) - Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof Required to Overcome a Patent’s Presumption of Validity

Advanced Software v. Fiserv (decided 6/2/11) - Some Claim Limitations Need Not Be Practiced for Direct Infringement

Global-Tech v. SEB (decided 5/31/11) - Supreme Court Holds that “Willful Blindness” to Patent Rights May Prove Indirect Infringement

Therasense v. Becton Dickinson (decided 5/25/11) - Raising the Bar for Establishing “Inequitable Conduct”

In re Brimonidine (decided 5/19/11) - Importance of Building a Detailed Factual Record for Federal Circuit Review of Obviousness Determinations

In re Kao (decided 5/13/11) - Federal Circuit Evaluates Patentability of "Providing Information" Claim Limitation

Radio Systems v. Accession (decided 4/25/11) - Cease and Desist Notices Not Sufficient to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Lexion Medical v. Northgate (decided 4/22/11) - Broad Construction of Claimed Numerical Range Affirmed

Citigroup v. Capital City Bank (3/28/11) - "DuPont Factors" Weighed in Affirming TTAB's Decision

In re Jung (decided 3/28/11) - PTO’s Burden in Rejecting Claims is Met When Applicant Can Understand Basis for Rejection

American Piledriving v. Geoquip (3/21/11) - Federal Circuit Passes on Opportunity to Provide Further Guidance on Claim Construction

In re BP Lubricants (decided 3/15/11) - Raising the Bar to Plead False Marking

Centocor Ortho v. Abbott (decided 2/28/11) - Written Description Support Requires Working Examples or “Constructive Possession”

February 25, 2011 - Managing the Pace of Patent Applications

February 25, 2011 - Federal Circuit Tosses $1.67 Billion Patent Verdict Against Abbott Labs

February 17, 2011 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: Managing IP Risks: The Importance of Obtaining Freedom to Operate Guidance - presentation now available

January 1, 2011 - Wolf Greenfield filed 2,749 patent applications and 688 trademark applications in 2010.

December 2010 - Wolf Greenfield was ranked #1 in number of patents filed and number of patent attorneys in Mass High Tech’s annual survey

Akamai v. Limelight (dec. 12/20/10) - Final Decision on Joint Infringement Standard Left to Full Court

Research Corp v. Microsoft (decided 12/8/10) - Federal Circuit Upholds Method Claims Outside the “Machine-or-Transformation” Test After Bilski

Western Union v. Moneygram (decided 12/7/10) - Common Sense Can Be Used in Determining Obviousness

Finjan v. Secure Computing (11/4/10) - Federal Circuit Addresses Infringement of Non-Method Claims that Recite Components Capable of Performing Method Steps

September 2010 - Wolf Greenfield 3rd Annual IP Litigation Webinar - webinar replay now available

Tessera v. ITC (decided 9/2/10) - Patent Rights Exhausted as of Authorized Sale

August 22, 2010 - Hunter Baker, Ed Gates and Chelsea Loughran presented at the American Chemical Society’s Fall National Meeting

July 7, 2010 - A Wolf Greenfield Webinar: Forecasting the Future of Method Patents Post-Bilski — archived replay of webinar now available

In Re Giacomini (decided 7/7/10) - Federal Circuit Clarifies Role of Provisional Applications as Prior Art

June 28, 2010 - CLIENT ALERT— Supreme Court Leaves Door Open to Business Method Patents

Encyclopedia Britannica v. Alpine Elec. (6/18/10) - Later Filed Applications Must Contain Specific References to Earlier Filed Application to Establish Priority Date

June 17, 2010 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: Strategically Building and Monetizing a Patent Portfolio - replay now available

June 11, 2010 - Special Feature -- Patent Litigation on a Budget

June 2, 2010 - Wolf Greenfield’s litigation team secured summary judgment of no patent infringement for our client The Jackson Laboratory

June 1, 2010 - What to Do When You Have to Sue Controlling Your Patent Litigation Costs

March 23, 2010 - Don’t assume concessions must be made for withheld indemnifications

March 15, 2010 - Credibility was at issue in 2009's largest verdict

February 26, 2010 - Wolf Greenfield wins key claim construction ruling for The Jackson Laboratory

February 25, 2010 - WOLF GREENFIELD SEMINAR: The Economics of Patent Litigation - replay now available

February 25, 2010 - Patent counsel at seminar advise plaintiffs to spend money up front, have settlement amount in mind

December 28, 2009 - Expert testimony invalid without evidentiary basis

September 24, 2009 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Confirms Diagnostic and Therapeutic Methods Can be Patentable Subject Matter

September 23, 2009 - Wolf Greenfield 2nd Annual IP Litigation Webinar- replay available

March 25, 2009 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Decision on Controversial PTO Rules

March 2, 2009 - Amicus brief filed for Bilski v. Doll

January 2009 - Patent Reexaminations Boom as a Strategy to Fight Infringement Charges

January 5, 2009 - Amicus brief filed for In re Engage, Inc.

LITIGATION SUCCESS - Wolf Greenfield wins $17M patent infringement settlement from Kraft for our client Keurig

November 13, 2008 - CLIENT ALERT — Federal Circuit Preserves–with Modifications–Patentability of Business Methods

September 25, 2008 - The Real Impact of eBay, KSR, MedImmune, Seagate, and Translogic – webinar replay now available

July 1, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands 'Exhaustion' Doctrine: Patent Owners' Right to Collect Downstream Royalties Restricted

June 30, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine

June 12, 2008 - Amicus brief filed for In re Engage, Inc.

June 11, 2008 - Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine and Restricts Patent Owners From Collecting Downstream Royalties

June 11, 2008 - CLIENT ALERT — Supreme Court Expands Exhaustion Doctrine and Restricts Patent Owners From Collecting Downstream Royalties

June 9, 2008 - No Downstream Royalties for LG: High Court

June, 2008 - Judge Puts a Literary Twist on Copyright Infringement Case

May 30, 2008 - Federal Court Dents RIAA Strategy Against File-Sharers

April 30, 2008 - Industry Insights: PTO's Potential Next Moves

April 22, 2008 - Apple Seeks Patent on iPhone Instant Messenging

April 21, 2008 - Snake Antivenom Can Be Patented, But Hold the Peanut Butter

April 17, 2008 - PRESS RELEASE — Top Litigator Allen Rugg joins Wolf Greenfield

April 15, 2008 - Seagate Drops Legal Bomb on SSD Memory Maker

April 14, 2008 - Tafas Decision Sparks Hope IDS Rules Also Doomed

April 7, 2008 - IP Boutique Wolf Greenfield Gains Top Litigator Allen Rugg, Expands Practice Rugg Brings National Reputation in High-Stakes IP and Business Litigation

April 7, 2008 - Amicus brief filed for In re Bilski

March 2008 - Top Trends in Intellectual Property Law for 2008

February 11, 2008 - Top IP Law Issues for 2008 Covered by Wolf Greenfield in Mass High Tech Article

February 7, 2008 - An Entrepreneur's Guide to the Intellectual Property Galaxy

May 2007 - Is Patent Litigation Worth It?

December, 2006 - IP Cases: Mediate or Litigate

November 2006 - Accelerated Examination of Patent Applications: Too Good To Be True?

October 2, 2006 - Is patent litigation worth the headaches?

June 12, 2006 - Companies sigh relief from Supreme Court's eBay decision

June 8, 2006 - Building the Patent Litigation War Chest: Enforcing Rights While Managing Costs

June 2006 - Cos. Sigh Relief from Supreme Court’s eBay Decision

April 14, 2005 - The "Use it or Lose it" Rule in Trademark Law

Q&A Booklet - Q&A on Intellectual Property Litigation