Patrick T. Muffo Attorney

Partner at Seyfarth Shaw
Chicago, United States (Login to view more)
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property
(312) ???-???? (Login to view more)


Written by Patrick Muffo & Kevin Mahoney, Seyfarth Shaw Every day, companies unknowingly give up intellectual property and trade secrets which they could ... Read More »
The admissibility of evidence is an important consideration for many PTAB proceedings. The procedures for objecting to and admitting evidence can be nuanced and, as... Read More »
A patentee has several options for responding to a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) or Covered Business Method (“CBM”) petition. The... Read More »
Inventions directed to “pure software” have arguably had the most difficult time surviving Alice challenges. Software is often characterized as an... Read More »
The doctrine of definiteness requires a patent to clearly state what the inventor considers to be their invention. Of course, the PTAB interprets various claim terms... Read More »
Courts have decided many recent Alice challenges based on whether the invention at hand is “physical” or not. Others determine patent-eligibility based on ... Read More »
Patent litigants or other “real parties in interest” are estopped from asserting invalidity challenges in federal court “on any ground that the... Read More »
Patent-eligibility of “physical” claims can be misleading. After all, a general purpose computer is a physical object but does not impart patentability to ... Read More »
Patent lawsuits often involve multiple patents and dozens of asserted patent claims. When asserting these claims lack patentable subject matter, it can be more... Read More »
Although it is unclear whether PTAB decisions are given collateral estoppel effect in district court proceedings, PTAB decisions are at least persuasive authority... Read More »