Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more
In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more
In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more
2/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents...more
2/7/2025
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
USPTO
Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success - In Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp., Appeal No. 23-2074, the Federal Circuit held that a claim limitation merely reciting an...more
1/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Claim Construction ,
Infringement ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Summary Judgment
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC, Appeal No. 22-2290, The Federal Circuit denied appellants’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal where appellants filed the motion after the court’s opinion and days...more
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
8/6/2024
/ Background Checks ,
Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Ex Parte ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Limited Liability Company (LLC) ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Public Disclosure ,
Public Interest ,
USPTO
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
6/7/2024
/ Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Licensing Rules ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patentability Search ,
Patents ,
Printed Matter Doctrine ,
Prior Art ,
Standing ,
Summary Judgment
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. -
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Copyright notices in product manuals, which prohibited their reproduction and...more
Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction -
In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more
12/5/2023
/ Article III ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Purdue Pharma ,
Standing
Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response -
In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
9/20/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
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
Objective Evidence in Determining Obviousness -
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations, Appeal No. 21-2357, the Federal Circuit held that a close prima facie case of obviousness can be overcome by strong evidence of...more
7/20/2023
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Medical Devices ,
Medtronic ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
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
Arthrex Again? Federal Circuit Says, “No More!” -
In Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 20-1565, the Federal Circuit held that, while the Appointments Clause requires that the USPTO Director have the power to...more
Restrictive Definitions Incorporated by Reference Do Not Necessarily Control for Later Patents in the Same Family -
In Finjan LLC v. Eset, LLC, Appeal No. 21-2093, the Federal Circuit held that specific definitions...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision Inc., Appeal No. 21-2037, the Federal Circuit held that, where a reference contains an “obvious” error in a disclosure, even one not immediately apparent from the face of the disclosure,...more
Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR -
In Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., Appeal No. 21-1179, the Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of determining whether a reference was...more
6/20/2022
/ Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Google ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious -
In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
4/5/2022
/ Anticipation ,
Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substitute Claims
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement -
In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
3/22/2022
/ Appeals ,
Binding Agreements ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Contract Terms ,
Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Prior Art ,
Settlement Agreements
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
1/11/2022
/ AstraZeneca ,
Generic Drugs ,
Instrinsic Evidence ,
Intel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Moderna Inc. ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm
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
12/9/2021
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Apple ,
Article III ,
Biogen Idec ,
Dr. Reddy’s Labs. ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing ,
Written Descriptions
No Assembly, No Infringement – Federal Circuit Declines to Expand the “Final Assembler” Theory of Direct Infringement
In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Appeal No. 20-1700 the Federal Circuit held that...more
11/9/2021
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Direct Infringement ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Software