News & Analysis as of

Apple Patent Litigation Prior Art

Jones Day

Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

Jones Day on

In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Some Touch Up Needed: The Federal Circuit Partially Confirms the PTAB’s View of Analogous Art

In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit partially signed off on Apple’s win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a number of patents owned by Corephotonics relating to dual-aperture...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom...

Caltech sued Broadcom and Apple for infringement, asserting three of its data transmission patents against Broadcom’s WiFi chips and certain Apple products that incorporate those chips. Apple then filed IPR petitions...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Inter Partes Review May Not Rely Solely on Admitted Prior Art

In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

In Qualcomm v. Apple, Federal Circuit Rules Out Applicant Admitted Prior Art As the “Basis” for Inter Partes Review

On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more

Jones Day

Don’t Save The Best: Federal Circuit Confirms Broad IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

The patent fight between Caltech and Broadcom/Apple made waves this month when the Federal Circuit vacated the $1.1 billion infringement award that Caltech had won in district court....more

Goldberg Segalla

Federal Circuit Clarifies IPR Estoppel and Vacates $1.1 Billion Verdict in Favor of Caltech Due to Improper Damages Theory

Goldberg Segalla on

On February 4, 2022, the Federal Circuit clarified that IPR estoppel extends to all claims and invalidity grounds that the petitioner could have reasonably asserted in its IPR petition. ...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

Jones Day on

Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Petitioner’s Reply Argument in IPR Is Not an Impermissible New Theory

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - February 2020 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more

Jackson Walker

Ex Parte Reexamination May Cost Apple $177 Million

Jackson Walker on

On May 24, 2018, Apple was awarded a verdict of $533 million for Samsung’s infringement of three Apple design patents. While unsuccessful ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) were filed against two of those three design patents,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Obviousness Inquiry Allows Flexibility in Considering Teachings of Prior Art

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of obviousness based on a flexible approach and further clarified the appropriate evaluation of secondary considerations...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

McDermott Will & Emery on

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Common Sense Is Not So Common-ly Obvious

Almost a decade has elapsed since the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. altered the law of patent obviousness. In reversing the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Court in KSR limited the...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2016

WilmerHale on

ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. (No. 2015-1565, 8/15/16) (Moore, Taranto, Hughes) - August 15, 2016 10:41 AM - Moore, J. Reversing summary judgment of invalidity of claims for lack of written...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Repeated Disparagement of the Prior Art in the Specification Can Operate as a Clear and Unmistakable Disavowal of Claim Scope -...

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of claim construction, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s narrow construction based on a disclaimer in the specification. Openwave Systems, Inc., NKA...more

Troutman Pepper

A Decision Not to Institute a Trial at the PTAB Does Not Carry Much Weight in Federal Court

Troutman Pepper on

Two recent cases show that simply avoiding a post-grant review proceeding at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) not only does not preclude a defendant in underlying patent infringement litigation in...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Comparison of Design Patent and Trade Dress Protection in Light of the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Apple v. Samsung

In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sharon Prost, the Federal Circuit held that while design patents covering product configurations – that is, “a product feature or a combination or arrangement of features” – can protect...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Petition Must Specifically Explain the Grounds for Invalidity - Apple Inc., v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.

In a trio of orders addressing the extent of express explanation required in a petition for post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found each petition defective for lack of explanation regarding...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IP Newsflash - June 2015 #2

DISTRICT COURT CASES - District Court Required Identification of Prior Art in Defendant’s Counterclaim of Invalidity - In the Southern District of New York, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Nearly Expired Is Not the Same as Expired: The Board Clarifies Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review - Apple, Inc....

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the standard to be applied for claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to create an...more

25 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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