Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Attorney search
Search by

The collective expertise of our global team distinguishes OBWB in the field of Intellectual Property Law. We align our best resources to meet each client's specific needs and we treat each matter with the highest degree of attention and care.

12600 Hill Country Blvd.
Suite 275, Austin   TX 78738
P: 512.480.0667
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Osha Liang LLP
1200 Pearl St. Ste. 314
Boulder, CO   80302
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
8/F, Hangzhou Kerry Center
385 Yan An Rd.
Hangzhou, China   310006
P: +86.571.2689.2537
F: +86.571.2689.2700

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Two Houston Center
909 Fannin
Suite 3500, Houston   TX 77010
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
2 Rue de la Paix
75002 Paris, France
P: +33.1.4494.8630
F: +33.1.4494.8631

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Level 28 Shinagawa Intercity Tower A
2-15-1 Konan Minato-ku
Tokyo, Japan   108-6028
P: 81.3.6717.2877
F: 81.3.6717.2878

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Suite 200
Washington, DC   20006
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.

China Passes Fourth Amendment to Patent Law

Despite a "regular pattern" of amending the Patent Law every eight years since it was enacted in 1984, on October 17, 2020, China has now passed the Fourth Amendment to the Patent Law after 12 years since the Third Amendment. Considering certain significant changes in the Fourth Amendment to the Patent Law and its profound implications, the long wait may prove worthwhile.

CAFC Declines Trial Court's Request for Help Understanding Section 101

As predicted, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now declined to hear an interlocutory appeal of a United States District Judge's denial of an accused infringer's motion to dismiss the complaint based on the infringer's defense of patent subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Trial judges unsure of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's Alice decision and subsequent CAFC precedent applying Alice must invalidate patents-in-suit at the pleading stage of a lawsuit if they wish to obtain early appellate confirmation of their Section 101 patent subject matter eligibility rulings.

Product-by-Process Claims in The United States

Despite numerous areas of patent law harmonization between the IP5 over the past few years, several areas of distinct disagreement remain between the members. One specific area of particular interest to those practicing in the chemical and life science arts is the topic of "product-by-process" claims, by which a product is defined at least in part in terms of the method or process by which it is made.

Patent Specification's Disclaimer of Invention's Scope May Break Chain of Priority

In Akeva, LLC, v. Nike, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer of claim scope in a patent specification that excluded a particular embodiment prevented later claims in the continuation patents from claiming the excluded embodiment, thereby breaking the priority chain. The Court also held that a disclaimer of claim scope in a specification could not be subsequently rescinded without introducing prohibited new matter.

Summary of USPTO Report on Public Views on Patenting AI Inventions

As part of the efforts to promote the understanding and reliability of intellectual property (IP) rights in relation to Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, the USPTO issued a request for comments (RFC) on patenting AI inventions on August 27, 2019. Based on the received comments to the RFC, the USPTO issued a report on Public Views on AI and IP policy. A summary of Part I of the report, which addresses patentability of AI inventions, is presented.

The Jury Is "In" On Standard Essentiality

As recently explained by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Comm'n Tech. Holdings Ltd., the question of whether a defendant's standard-compliant product infringes a Standard Essential Patent ("SEP") merely because it is standard-compliant may be submitted to a jury. It is not necessary in every case involving SEPs to ask the jury to compare the patent claims to the accused infringing product. Moreover, there is no requirement of any prior ruling by the district court that compliance with mandatory sections of the standard necessarily results in infringement.

Osha Liang Piloting the Inaugural Midsize Mansfield Rule

We are pleased to announce our participation in the inaugural group of midsize law firms piloting Diversity Lab's Midsize Mansfield Rule. Accordingly to Diversity Lab's 09/15/20 press release, "The goal of the Mansfield Rule is to boost the representation of diverse lawyers in law firm leadership by broadening the pool of candidates considered for these roles and opportunities." [See full press release here] This collaboration...