Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent...more
Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part,...more
FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC - Before Moore, Chen, and Barnett. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The district court erred by construing a claim term based on disclosures made in a provisional application and...more
Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply...more
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
On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...more
The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of statutory estoppel that applies in District Court after the PTAB issues a final written decision in a related inter partes review (IPR). Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No....more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...more
On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more
The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more
In a recent precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent application constitutes prior art as of its filing date, not its publication date. In Lynk Labs. Inc. v....more