The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to...more
On July 31, 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court changed the test for enforceability of contractually shortened claim limitation periods in Rayford v American House. Employers often shorten the statute of limitations of...more
The recent fires in Los Angeles have left many businesses grappling with significant disruptions. For business owners, navigating the aftermath of such a catastrophe often includes understanding how their insurance policies,...more
An issue of great importance to all construction project parties, including design professionals and contractors, is pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). In the matter of Trustees of Boston...more
The language for the proposed Justice for Victims of Foreign Vessel Accidents Act (Bill) was released on Sept. 11, 2024. As discussed in Holland & Knight's previous blog post, "Foreign-Flagged Vessels Beware," Sept. 9, 2024,...more
On August 2, 2024, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 2979 into law. The bill amends the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to limit the number of claims that can be brought under the law’s private right...more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidation of a counterpart U.S. patent in the same family for lack of enablement (21-757 Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (05/18/23) (supremecourt.gov)), the UPC has now rendered a decision on its...more
In Ohio Sec. Ins. Co v. Brakefire, Inc., CA. No. 5:24-cv-267, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97606 (Brakefire), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio considered whether a subrogating plaintiff’s negligence...more
In Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited, 2023-1194 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2024), the Federal Circuit reaffirms that a patent claim that includes narrowing limitations requiring only some elements of a Markush group recited...more
On March 18, the USPTO issued a guidance document on how to examine claims that recite functional limitations without necessarily using the term “means” under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The guidance document aims to improve clarity,...more
On March 18, 2024, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its Examiners reminding them of the resources and proper analysis for interpreting limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which are commonly referred to as...more
On March 18, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memorandum to patent examiners addressing means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations and how to clearly articulate, in the prosecution...more
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials recently reiterated to all patent examiners that they must provide clear, consistent analysis regarding means-plus-function and step-plus-function limitations. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s indefiniteness determination, finding that two claim limitations – one broad and one narrow – were not contradictory since it was possible to meet...more
In analyzing patent obviousness, how “simple” must the relevant technology be in order for “common sense” to supply a limitation missing in the prior art? Ever since the Supreme Court referenced “common sense” five times...more
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) patentability decisions, holding that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion by not addressing arguments not clearly presented...more
Last week marked the first time that USPTO Director Vidal acted under the Revised Interim Director Review Process to order a Delegated Rehearing Panel to review a decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR). In...more
A Petitioner filed a request for rehearing and a request for Precedential Opinion Panel review after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or the “Board”) rejected its petition for post-grant review. The Director of the...more
A recent 5-4 decision issued by the Supreme Court of Washington, Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., reflects the importance of carefully crafting claim limitation language in residential development and construction...more
This is a Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (LAA) ruling that was handed down on 16 June 2023 in the context of a medical negligence claim. Adam and Michelle Goodridge brought an application for an extension of time in...more
Absent exceptional circumstances, the Federal Circuit will generally not consider arguments that a party failed to present in the tribunal under review. In Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that IPR...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that challenged claims were invalid as anticipated based on principles of inherency where the disclosed prior art formulations and processes necessarily met a disputed...more
In December 2022, the Alberta legislature passed a bill allowing for an increase to the limit on civil claims in the Alberta Court of Justice (formerly, the Provincial Court of Alberta and sometimes referred to as "small...more
This is an update to our February 2023 Blakes Bulletin: Provincial Court of Alberta: New Year, New Maximum Claims Limit? regarding the passing of Bill 5 by the Alberta Legislature on December 15, 2022. The Alberta...more
The Supreme Court's (re)consideration of the enablement requirement expected in its decision later this year in Amgen v. Sanofi may be the most closely watched patent case since AMP v. Myriad Genetics. But in a decision...more