In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation V. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2110, the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review decision on patentability when...more
IN RE THOMAS D. FOSTER, APC, - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act bars registration of a pending application for a mark that falsely...more
In Ams-Osram USA Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2185, the Federal Circuit held that under Texas law, a trade secret becomes publicly accessible on the earliest date it could be reverse engineered...more
Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more
ODYSSEY LOGISTICS & TECHNOLOGY CORP. v. STEWART - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A patent applicant forfeited its Appointments Clause...more
In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more
In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more
2/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents...more
2/7/2025
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
USPTO
Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success - In Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp., Appeal No. 23-2074, the Federal Circuit held that a claim limitation merely reciting an...more
1/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Claim Construction ,
Infringement ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Summary Judgment
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory?
In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more
The Outcome of the PTAB’s Analysis May Determine Whether the PTAB Engaged in Claim Construction -
In Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1750, the Federal Circuit held that the outcome of the PTAB’s analysis of...more
3/5/2024
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Philip Morris ,
Prior Art
RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. v. PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A -
Before Chen, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. -
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Copyright notices in product manuals, which prohibited their reproduction and...more
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert...more
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion -
In Inguran, LLC Dba Stgenetics v. Abs Global, Inc., Genus Plc, Appeal No. 22-1385, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim...more
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
BERTINI v. APPLE INC.
Before Moore, Taranto and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Tacking a mark for one good or service does not grant priority for every other good or service in the...more
Inventor’s Testimony Regarding Actual Reduction to Practice Was Sufficiently Corroborated In Dionex Softron GmbH v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2372, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB did not err in...more
Duplicative-Litigation Doctrine: Proper Motion Practice is Essential to Avoid Dismissal of Duplicative Complaints -
In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., Appeal No. 21-1967, the Federal Circuit held that under the...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR -
In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
6/20/2022
/ Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents