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
A recent memo from the acting director of the US Patent and Trademark Office directs the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject inter partes review (IPR) petitions that use “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert...more
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
In a precedential ruling that underscores the importance of consistency in claim drafting, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a claim construction based on an improper interpretation of the...more
On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah that found certain claims of a selectorized dumbbell...more
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
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
Mondis Technology Ltd., et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-2117, -2116 (Fed. Cir. (D.N.J.) Aug. 8, 2025). Opinion by Hughes, joined by Taranto and Clevenger....more
MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., HITACHI MAXELL, LTD., NKA MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD., MAXELL, LTD. v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. - Before Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a preliminary injunction (PI), finding that the district court improperly construed a claim term based on references cited in a provisional application but...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
Be careful of showing your claimed inventions at tradeshows. On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a summary judgment ruling that, by merely showcasing an embodying device at an industry event (the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more
In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. ...more
In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the meaning of terms used in challenged claims of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the claim language and the specification. The...more