Insights
Search Results
News Articles
2.17.26
WIPR Recognizes Wilson Sonsini in USA Patent Rankings 2025
World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) recognized Wilson Sonsini’s patents practice in the 2025 edition of “WIPR USA Patents,” a comprehensive analysis of the leading law firms and attorneys in the U.S. Wilson Sonsini is ranked as a “Recommended Firm” and is noted for its patent work and for its bench of deeply knowledgeable practitioners. The firm is also recognized for its work in cutting-edge technology sectors, including artificial intelligence and machine learning.
Newsletters
2.05.26
The PTAB Review – January 2026
The January 2026 issue of The PTAB Review discusses notable developments at the PTAB, including changes to institution procedures, and precedential and informative decisions, explores several appellate decisions relevant to PTAB trials, and examines potential rule changes submitted for comment.
Newsletters
1.08.26
Litigation Trends to Watch in 2026
Entering 2026, Wilson Sonsini litigators see a landscape defined by AI driven disputes, continued tightening of patent review standards, renewed securities and governance litigation, stronger consumer and influencer enforcement, and escalating Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) exposure—trends that require companies to align legal strategy with technical and operational controls.
Client Highlights
12.02.25
Wilson Sonsini Secures PTAB Institution in Five IPRs Filed for Azurity Pharmaceuticals
On November 19, 2025, Wilson Sonsini obtained a significant milestone for Azurity Pharmaceuticals, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituting inter partes review in all five petitions the firm filed on Azurity’s behalf. The petitions challenge methods and compositions for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The Board’s institution decisions found a reasonable likelihood that Azurity will prevail on at least one challenged claim in each proceeding and authorized full trials on the grounds raised. The Board’s decisions are a notable milestone in the current PTAB environment, where institution rates have tightened significantly. Three Administrative Patent Judges independently concluded the challenges were reasonably likely to succeed, and the cases will now proceed to the yearlong trial phase.
News Articles
10.01.25
LMG Life Sciences Recognizes Wilson Sonsini, Attorneys in 2025 Guide
On September 30, 2025, LMG Life Sciences announced the 2025 edition of its guide, which identifies and ranks the leading law firms and individuals in the life sciences industry across the United States. The rankings are the result of firm participation in questionnaires, partner interviews to gather market feedback, client surveys, and independent research. LMG Life Sciences has conducted research and published rankings since 2012. This year, six Wilson Sonsini practices and 18 attorneys have been recognized in the guide.
Alerts
6.12.25
Patent Office Denial of “Late” Inter Partes Review Petitions Changes Expectations
On June 6, 2025, the acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision in iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn, Inc.1 that initiates a new basis for discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The Director denied institution of iRhythm’s IPR petitions because iRhythm had upset Welch Allyn’s settled expectations in the enjoyment of its patents. iRhythm is the first such IPR discretionary denial and raises questions about the scope of this new doctrine and its congruence with judicial and congressional developments.
News Articles
5.30.25
Wilson Sonsini, Attorneys Honored in 2025 IAM Patent 1000
On May 29, 2025, IAM 1000 recognized Wilson Sonsini in the 2025 edition of IAM Patent 1000. The guide honored the firm with three firm rankings and six Wilson Sonsini attorneys received individual recommendations in the rankings.
Client Highlights
2.03.25
Wilson Sonsini Successfully Represents Impossible Foods in First-of-Its-Kind FoodTech Patent Suit
Wilson Sonsini served as lead counsel for Impossible Foods in a patent infringement litigation alleging infringement of seven Impossible Foods patents covering manufacturing processes, ingredients, and finished products relating to plant-based food containing heme and Impossible’s innovative transgenic yeast used to manufacture that heme. Our team successfully represented Impossible Foods in defense of six inter partes review petitions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2022 and 2023. Wilson Sonsini defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay the District Court litigation. The matter was closely watched as the first patent infringement case in the burgeoning foodtech industry. With trial approaching, the parties resolved the matter and released a joint statement that said: “This resolution affirms Impossible Foods’ category leadership and the strength of its product portfolio related to heme.”
News Articles
9.17.24
Wilson Sonsini, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of LMG Life Sciences
On September 17, 2024, LMG Life Sciences recognized several Wilson Sonsini practices and 19 of its attorneys in the 2024 edition of its guide, which identifies and ranks the leading law firms and individuals in the life sciences industry across the United States. The rankings are the result firm participation in questionnaires, partner interviews to gather market feedback, client surveys, and independent research. LMG Life Sciences has conducted research and published rankings since 2012.
Alerts
7.01.24
U.S. Supreme Court Administrative Law Decisions Raise Questions for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proceedings
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important administrative law cases that are expected to increase judicial authority over agency adjudications and rulemaking. In Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (decided June 27), the Court held that when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (decided June 28), the Court held that courts should not defer to an agency statutory interpretation. While each ruling might have significant effects on some agencies, their effect on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should be much more limited because, generally, USPTO regulatory authorities are much more limited and because USPTO’s primary reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is a specialized court that does not defer to USPTO on legal questions.