On August 11, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s ruling that all but one of the claims in PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PowerBlock Holdings,...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a $4.7M verdict in a patent lawsuit involving two patents concerning next-generation sequencing methods—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,810 and 10,450,597. Both patents concern DNA preparation...more
8/21/2025
/ Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Biotechnology ,
CAFC ,
Claim Construction ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more
6/17/2025
/ Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Medical Devices ,
New Guidance ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new...more
4/3/2025
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Filing Deadlines ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pending Litigation ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal...more