News & Analysis as of

Qualcomm

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Expert Need Not Have Acquired the Requisite Skill Level Prior to the Time of the Invention

WilmerHale on

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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed....

Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...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

White & Case LLP

European courts clarify the law on anti-competitive rebates

White & Case LLP on

Key 2022 judgments apply a five-factor analysis outlined by the EU’s highest court in 2017 - The past year has seen a number of judgments by the General Court of the European Union (GC)—the EU's court of first...more

White & Case LLP

EU General Court quashes Qualcomm antitrust fine for "exclusivity payments", and censures the EU Commission for multiple due...

White & Case LLP on

The General Court of the European Union delivered a blow to the European Commission in fully annulling its Qualcomm (exclusivity payments) decision of 2018 and a EUR 997 million fine. Qualcomm v Commission1 is the first...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

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

IP Alert: Federal Circuit Nixes Admitted Prior Art as Basis for IPR

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

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

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

Party Stipulations during IPR: Incompatible with the Statutory Scheme?

In late December, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2020-1828 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit found the PTAB erred by accepting Intel’s stipulation concerning the indefiniteness of a means-plus-function claim...more

Cooley LLP

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Class Action Against Qualcomm

Cooley LLP on

Cooley litigators secured a win on behalf of Qualcomm, a San Diego based technology company that specializes in semiconductors, in a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District...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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot Be a “Basis For” an IPR Challenge

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a decision dated February 1, 2022, the Federal Circuit confirmed that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not form the basis of a validity challenge in an inter partes review (IPR). The decision arose out of two IPRs...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - December 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive - In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch - January 2022

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. HEC PHARM CO., LTD. [OPINION] (2021-1070, January 3, 2021) (MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY) - O’Malley, J. Affirming district court decision...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Should Analyze Patentability Even if Claims Are Indefinite

Knobbe Martens on

INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Indefinite claims do not preclude patentability analysis at the PTAB....more

Knobbe Martens

A Generic Motivation Is Still a Motivation

Knobbe Martens on

INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A “generic” motivation to combine that has broad appeal or applicability is not...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more

Proskauer - Corporate Defense and Disputes

Qualcomm Escapes Diversity Suit

Another diversity-based derivative suit was dismissed this week by a federal district court, joining a list of decisions that have rejected similar shareholder allegations. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No More Bites at the Apple: Imminent and Non-Speculative Standing Still Required

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing for Second Bite at the Apple

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Ninth Circuit Limits Ability of Indirect Purchaser Classes to Bring Nationwide Suits

The Ninth Circuit has held that a putative class of nationwide consumers that brought damages claims under California law was erroneously certified. Until now, class actions asserting claims for plaintiffs across the country...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - August 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION] (2020-1589, 2020-1590, 2020-1591, 2020-1592, 2020-1593, 2020-1594, 7/27/21) (Moore, Reyna, Stoll) - Moore, J. Vacating final...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2021

Knobbe Martens on

District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle - In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Qualcomm Prevails at Federal Circuit Based on Lack of Notice and Adequate Opportunity to Respond

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit held that Qualcomm was not afforded notice of, or an adequate opportunity to respond to, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) novel construction of an undisputed...more

McDermott Will & Emery

As Due Process Recognizes, it’s Hard to Shoot at a Moving Claim Construction Target

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated several Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions as violating due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), referencing the parties’ inability to respond...more

184 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 8

"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