Daily Compliance News: April 24, 2025, The Made in Malaysia Edition
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
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
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2022-1884, -1886 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Wis.) Aug. 28, 2024). Opinion by Prost, joined by Taranto and Chen. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) sued Apple for...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 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
This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently ruled that select Apple watch models infringed on blood oxygen monitoring patents owned by biotech firm Masimo Corporation. As a result, the ITC instituted a ban on...more
On September 18, in identical opinions issued in separate cases against Google and Apple, EDVA District Judge Michael Nachmanoff ruled that four patents directed toward geolocation of mobile devices claimed patent-ineligible...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
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
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
APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Notice letters and related...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
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
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
California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Inc. and Apple Inc. Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk (concurring/dissenting). Appeal from the District Court for the Central District of California - Summary: IPR estoppel in...more
APPLE INC. V. WI-LAN INC. Before Moore, Chief Judge, Bryson, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Summary: Construing a broad claim term to be re-defined as...more
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
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC v. APPLE INC. Before Taranto, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patentee’s reference to existing known methods and techniques in...more
Bulk-Filed Patent Applications Claiming Distant Priority Trigger Prosecution Laches - In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 18-2390, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO met its burden to prove prosecution laches for bulk-filed...more
Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Appeal Nos. 2019-1580, -1581 (Fed. Cir., March 5, 2020). In January of this year, a jury awarded the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) $837,801,178 for Apple’s...more