Blog

Stay Current on all things IP by subscribing to our blog

Harness IP takes pride in our collective knowledge of intellectual property law and how it affects businesses and organizations across a range of industries. We also enjoy keeping up with the latest decisions from the prominent venues that affect IP law, including the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the PTAB. Our goal is to distill this knowledge into practical guidance that in-house counsel and others can use. We invite you to join our audience and enrich the discussion whenever possible.

June 30, 2025

5 Federal Circuit Patent Cases You Need To Know

More
June 26, 2025

Enablement, Anticipation, and Claim Strategy: Rethinking Biotech Patent Drafting Post-Agilent

More
June 23, 2025

Six Actions to Take to Ensure Your Trade Secret Stays Secret

More
June 23, 2025

Cannabis And Trademarks: Protecting Against Infringement

More
May 13, 2025

The Hypocrisy of ‘Delete IP’: Billionaire Frustrations Masquerading as Policy

More
May 12, 2025

A Path to Antibody Protection

More

March 27, 2013

Fed. Cir. Rejects Design Patent Application

By:

March 26, 2012

Protecting Intellectual Property in Supplier Drawings and Specification Submissions: “Black-Boxing”

By:

February 17, 2012

Harness IP Stronger with Additional USPTO Location

By:

January 11, 2012

USPTO Issues Nearly A Quarter Million Patents in 2011

By:

January 11, 2012

USPTO Issues 21356 Design Patents in 2011

By:

January 11, 2012

USPTO Issues 239346 Trademark Registrations on 2011

By:

October 31, 2011

ADAPTING TO PATENT REFORM

By:

August 22, 2011

CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

By:

August 18, 2011

The Cost of Sloppy Claim Drafting

By:

August 11, 2011

CAFC MYRIAD DECISION: This is Not a “Gene Patent” Case

By:

July 26, 2011

USPTO Proposes Amending Rule 1.56 To Define Materiality In Accordance With Therasense

By: Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal

July 20, 2011

Launch of .XXX Domain Names – Blocking Registration of Trademarks as Domains

By:

June 17, 2011

Does the Federal Circuit “mean” it this time? Adding confusion to when claim language lacking the word “means” should be subject to means-plus-function analysis.

By:

June 17, 2011

A possibility among a limited number is not necessarily a predictable solution; teaching away need not be specific.

By:

June 10, 2011

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, U.S., No. 10-290 (June 9, 2011).

By:

June 10, 2011

Stanford v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.

By:

June 2, 2011

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA – The Supreme Court Addresses Inducement of Patent Infringement

By:

May 27, 2011

Therasense’s Stringent Inequitable Conduct Test

By:

May 4, 2011

TTAB: Prompt Filing of Supplemental Response Cures Procedural Deficiency in Expert Disclosures

By:

April 25, 2011

TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.

By: