Crashing and Burning: What Companies Can Learn From the Apple TV+ Series WeCrashed - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination...more
Judge Alan D. Albright, sitting by designation at the Federal Circuit, penned his inaugural appellate decision in Apple v. Omni MedSci on Friday. The unanimous ruling favored Apple, who contested Omni MedSci’s patent via...more
On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance in the power of Patent-Office rulemaking and enforcement, and the influence it has on patent owners and challengers alike....more
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
As a nerdy kid, I used to read popular science magazines in the checkout line, waiting for my mom to finish buying groceries. It was the early 1980’s. I remember picking up the latest Psychology Today issue and flipping...more
In a precedential opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a final written decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found that Apple had failed to meet its burden of showing...more
APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD. Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert...more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel? In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Appeal No. 21-2296, the Federal Circuit held that the patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a...more
On March 13, 2023, in Apple, Inc., et al. v. Vidal, Case No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a decision from the Northern District of California dismissing a lawsuit filed by...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION] (2022-1037, 3/13/23) (Newman, Prost, Hughes) - Prost, J. Reversed and remanded in favor of petitioner Intel because the...more
APPLE INC. v. VIDAL - Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Judicial review is available to determine whether the PTO...more
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
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
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - UNILOC 2017 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2021-1498, 2021-1500, 2021-1501, 2021-1502, 2021-1503, 2021-1504, 2021-1505, 2021-1506, 2021-1507, 2021-1508, 2021-1509, 11/4/2022) (Lourie,...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a bright-line rule that patent infringement notice letters and related communications can never form the basis for specific personal jurisdiction. Apple Inc. v. Zipit...more
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY - Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning...more
On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more
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
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
In 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) announced six factors to be used in determining whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) when a fast-moving parallel district court litigation could determine the...more