Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Podcast: IP(DC): Inside Patent Reform Efforts, Anticipated Federal Circuit Appeals, and Patent Cases of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s infringement finding, concluding it was precluded by prosecution history estoppel. Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, Case No. 23-2153 (Fed....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that held for the first time that principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, aligning design patent law more closely with...more
Patents are a mutually beneficial agreement between inventors and the government. Each side makes concessions in service of their own, and the greater, good. It’s a careful balance, where policy and rules that are too...more
[MITEK SYSTEMS, INC., v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION [OPINION]] - Before Taranto, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff could not seek...more
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Once the high threshold for lexicography is met, there must be a...more
RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. - Before Dyk, Prost, and Goldberg. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit found that claims applying established methods of...more
Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more
Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more
On May 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, released its opinion in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google, LLC. In an 8-2 decision, the court reversed a $20 million jury verdict, holding that the...more
Aviation Capital Partners v. SH Advisors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ineligibility of claims directed to determining the taxability status of aircraft based on flight data. The panel upheld...more
In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more
On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Before Murphy, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Arguments and amendments made during prosecution of a parent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a mandamus petition requesting transfer from the Marshall division to the Sherman division within the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, finding that...more
Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more
Ericsson v. Lenovo, Inc., 2024 WL 4558664 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - On October 24, 2024, the Federal Circuit in Ericsson v. Lenovo vacated a district court’s denial of Lenovo’s request for an antisuit injunction in a case...more
On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed...more
On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §...more
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., 2024 WL 3836107 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - On August 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dismissed an appeal for lack of standing after a...more
The world of intellectual property law is always changing, and it can be difficult to keep up. Here are 13 developments in patent law so far in 2024 to help you stay in the know....more
Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued its most recent precedential decision on satisfying the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission in Zircon...more
On May 2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion in SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, discussing personal jurisdiction and – for the first time –...more