Charleston patent attorney B.C. Killough

Killough ranked in Chambers USA – SC Intellectual Property Law

Kim, Lahey & Killough Earns Ranking in Chambers USA for Intellectual Property Law in South Carolina B.C. Killough Receives Individual Recognition Kim, Lahey & Killough is proud to announce its recognition for expertise in intellectual property law in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA. The firm was ranked among the state’s leading intellectual property law […]
Continue Reading
legal gavel with pharmaceuticals

Teva Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Appellant,  v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Appellee ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor  2020-1747, 2020-1748, 2020-1750 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board […]
Continue Reading
PTAB logo

New Vision Gaming v SG Gaming

New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., FKA Bally Gaming, Inc. Nos. 2020-1399, 2020-1400 Fed. Cir. May 13, 2021 Before Circuit Judges Newman, Moore, and Taranto. Opinion by Circuit Judge Moore. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge Newman. New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. appealed two […]
Continue Reading
crocs patent art

Mojave Desert Holdings v. Crocs

MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant v. CROCS, INC., Appellee Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,100. ORDER ISSUED: February 11, 2021  ORDER MODIFIED: April 21, 2021 U.S.A. Dawgs appealed from a United States Patent and Trademark Office decision finding Crocs design patent (No. D517,789) patentable. […]
Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

Uniloc v Facebook, Whatsapp

Uniloc 2017 LLC (Uniloc) appealed from two consolidated inter partes review (IPR) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding certain  claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433 (Patent) as obvious.   Facebook petitioned to join an IPR initiated by Apple, Inc. challenging claims 1-6 and 8 of the Patent.  LG Electronics Inc. (LG) also petitioned to join both of Facebook’s IPRs.  This scenario presented a possible statutory estoppel issue.
Continue Reading
hand holding generic store loyalty card

cxLoyalty v Maritz Holdings

cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc. No. 2019-1567 Nos. 2020-1307, 2020-1309Fed. Cir. February 8, 2021 Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Lourie and Hughes. cxLoyalty petitioned for a covered business method (“CBM”) review of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,134,087. The Board instituted CBM review and concluded that the original claims 1–15 are ineligible […]
Continue Reading
Mullen patent art

Donner Tech v Pro Stage Gear

Donner Technology, LLC V. Pro Stage Gear, LLC No. 2020-1104 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018- 00708. Fed. Cir. November 9, 2020 Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Dyk and Hughes. Donner Technology, LLC (“Donner”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) challenging various […]
Continue Reading
patent circuit board

Facebook v Windy City Innovations

Facebook, Inc., v. Windy City Innovations, LLC Nos. 2018-1400, 2018-1401, 2018-1402, 2018-1403, 2018-1537,2018-1540, 2018-1541  Opinion Issued: March 18, 2020 Opinion Modified: September 4, 2020  Before Chief Judge Prost, with Circuit Judges Plager and O’Malley. Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) filed a complaint accusing Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) of infringing certain patents. Exactly one year after […]
Continue Reading
wooden dice spelling obvious

Alacritech v Intel, Cavium, Dell

Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, Cavium, LLC, Dell, Inc. Nos. 2019-1467, 2019-1468 Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020 Before Circuit Judges Moore, Chen, and Stoll. Alacritech appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions holding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,131,880 unpatentable as obvious. The Court held that the Board did not adequately support its […]
Continue Reading
Valencell patent drawings

Fitbit v Valencell

Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc. No. 2019-1048 Fed. Cir. Before Circuit Judges Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Apple petitioned the Board for IPR of claims 1–13. The Board denied review of claims 3–5. Fitbit filed an IPR petition for claims 1, 2, and 6–13 and moved for joinder with Apple’s IPR, which the Board granted. After […]
Continue Reading