News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Invalidity

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 1, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more

A&O Shearman

UPC Ruling on amendment of counterclaims in patent revocation

A&O Shearman on

Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v. Ceracon GmbH, Mannheim Local Division, June 6, 2025 (UPC_CFI_745/2024) The UPC has recently clarified its strict approach to amending counterclaims for revocation in patent litigation....more

Jones Day

Acting Director Clarifies Multi-Petition Policy for Competing Constructions

Jones Day on

On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

N.D. Cal. Judge Reverses Prior Order Barring Device Art “Materially Identical” to Printed Publications After Federal Circuit...

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Ingenus Pharms., LLC v. Nexus Pharms., Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Cyclophosphamide is an antineoplastic agent used to treat various cancers, including lymphomas, myeloma, leukemia, and breast carcinoma. The ’952 patent, issued to Plaintiffs in May...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a...more

A&O Shearman

Evidence Exclusion And Daubert Motion Denials Must Be Supported By Valid Legal Rule And Reasoning; Damage Calculation Must Account...

A&O Shearman on

In Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the judgment in a patent infringement case involving three patents owned by Jiaxing Super...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: UTC’s ’782 patent claims a method for treating pulmonary hypertension (“PH”). PH manifests in different varieties, including pulmonary arterial hypertension (“PAH”) and pulmonary...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Out With the Old, in With the New: Judge Ramos Grants Leave to Assert New Patents After the Original Patents-in-Suit Were Found...

On July 29, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiff Kannuu Pty, Ltd. (“Kannuu”) leave to amend its complaint to allege infringement of two newly-issued patents, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report August 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Key Takeaway: When facing a patent infringement suit, accused infringers traditionally turned to inter partes review (IPR) as a faster, more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. However, recent guidance...more

Venable LLP

Jury Finds Botox® Patent Claims Nonobvious and Awards Damages from Daxxify® Sales

Venable LLP on

On July 18, 2025, after a five-day trial, the jury in Allergan v. Revance Case No. 1:21-cv-01411 (D. Del.) entered a verdict finding claim 8 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,354,740 (“the ’740 patent”), claim 6 of U.S. Patent...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Reexaminations Poised to Make a Quiet Comeback: Discretionary Denial Guidance for Inter Partes Reexamination May Increase...

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Imagine this. You were just served with a Complaint for patent infringement and learn that, some years ago, your competitor was granted a patent giving them a legal monopoly to exclude others, including you, from making,...more

K&L Gates LLP

USPTO Director Ends IPR Against Midas Green Technologies

K&L Gates LLP on

On 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR)...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 25, 2025

Alston & Bird on

IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2025). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Reyna. IGT owns a patent related to secured virtual networks in gaming environments. After the patent application was...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Nothing to See Here: Judge Engelmayer Finds Claims Directed to Interactive Mobile Advertising to be Abstract

On July 21, 2025, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL’s (together, “Teads”) Motion to Dismiss Yieldmo, Inc.’s (“Yieldmo”) Amended Complaint alleging that Teads...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Rise of Obviousness Double Patenting SNQs and Rejections in Reexaminations Challenging Expired Patents

Obvious-type double patenting (ODP) has historically served as a tool to prevent patent owners from extending exclusivity beyond the statutory allowed patent term and to tie patent families together during sale. Historically,...more

Jones Day

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Don’t get too comfy: Prosecution disclaimer also applies to design patents

Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The UPC – Two Years On

The Unified Patent Court – a one-stop-shop for European patent litigation – is now two years old. As it enters its third year of operation, we look at the approach that is becoming established in the new system, drawing out...more

A&O Shearman

UPC Court of Appeal clarifies approach to claim construction

A&O Shearman on

Insulet v EOFlow UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Ord_69078/2024) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has issued a significant decision that provides important guidance on the interpretation of patent claims in UPC...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

PTO Creates New Expectations Regarding Discretionary Denials

On the heels of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of iRhythm Technologies’ inter partes review petition, the PTO has now issued additional decisions clarifying the role...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Do Not Try Again: Judge Oetken Invokes Collateral Estoppel to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Infringement...

On July 9, 2025, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y) found that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff Linfo IP, LLC from relitigating the validity of its asserted patent and dismissed Linfo’s infringement claims against Aero...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - July 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Jackson Walker

Perceptix v. Meta Platforms – A Headphone Patent Lawsuit Without a Sound Basis

Jackson Walker on

On June 30, 2025, Perceptix filed suit against Meta Platforms for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,498,439, which describes a headphone that turns on when it is worn. The ‘439 Patent is assigned to the Electronics and...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) / Jubbonti® / Wyost® (denosumab-bbdz) / Ospomyv™ / Xbryk™ (denosumab-dssb) / Stoboclo®...

Venable LLP on

Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more

618 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 25

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide