News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Invalidity

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Lump Sum Settlement Licenses Insufficient to Support $X Royalty Rate...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2023-1101, 5/21/2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Stark) - Moore, C.J. The en banc Court reversed...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Revival of the Staccato Cherry Patent: Key Considerations for Plant Variety Protection

In recent developments in a years-long conflict over Canadian-bred cherries, the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington has vacated a prior order invalidating a U.S. plant patent over the Staccato cherry tree...more

K&L Gates LLP

Estoppel Estopped?

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Interesting Recent § 101 Cases – Structural Components Are Not Enough

Your Package Could Not Be Delivered – District of Delaware Strikes Electronic Storage Room Claims as Patent Ineligible - Judge Choe-Groves of the United States Court of International Trade granted Defendant’s Motion to...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: An Informative PTAB Decision, Squires Speaks

Holland & Knight LLP on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated a recent decision as informative. In the decision, Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), ended the petitioner's challenges, noting that...more

Jones Day

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Jones Day on

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Patents Must Describe the “How” - A Reminder That Functional Claims Need Structural Support

On April 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (No. 23-2312), issued on April 30, 2025, upholding the invalidation of Finitiv Inc.’s (“Finitiv”) mobile wallet patents related...more

Jones Day

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Jones Day on

On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

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

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

SCOTUS Declines to Hear Coke Zero Patent Case

On April 28, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Celanese International Corp.’s challenge to a Federal Circuit decision which found the company’s patent on the process to create the artificial sweetener used in Coke...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

A Line in the Sand: Federal Circuit Bounds IPR Estoppel in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more

A&O Shearman

The CAFC Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Shield Patentees From System Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more

Fish & Richardson

ITC Round-Up: Q1 2025

Fish & Richardson on

The first quarter of 2025 saw the International Trade Commission issue the following public orders addressing a wide variety of issues ranging from evaluation of significance for domestic industry to staying remedial orders...more

Paul Hastings LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies the Scope of IPR Estoppel

Paul Hastings LLP on

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

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

Jones Day on

In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more

Jones Day

INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case

Jones Day on

On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768 Patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal holdings, Inc.

Fintiv, Inc. v. Paypal holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that the terms “payment...more

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] A New Test: Landmark Decision Overrules Framework for Design Patent Obviousness

BakerHostetler on

The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 25, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.

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

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

1,322 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 53

"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