News & Analysis as of

Apple Patent Invalidity

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

Troutman Pepper

EDVA Judge Rules That Geolocation Patents Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Troutman Pepper on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2023

Knobbe Martens on

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

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

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

Knobbe Martens

Intrinsic Record Thwarts Theory of Interchangeability

Knobbe Martens on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Yu v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2021)

When the Supreme Court began poking around into the law of patent eligibility just over a decade ago, the invention topics that it considered under the abstract idea exception were limited to types of financial transactions. ...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - September 2020 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1456, -1457 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2020) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed two novel issues following inter partes review...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

Jones Day

Motion to Amend Available Only For Challenged Claims

Jones Day on

In Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, the patent owner moved to amend the claims contingent on an unpatentability finding by the Board. The contingent amendment cancelled the original claims and replaced them with a new claim set. The...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

Knobbe Martens

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary: Failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that the term is not a...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Encompasses All Embodiments in the Absence of Support Specifically Excluding an Embodiment - In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1290, the Federal Circuit...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Invalidation of Patents Following Jury Verdict of Infringement Does Not Necessarily Impact Willfulness Finding

In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - October 2016

WilmerHale on

Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare (No. 2015-1977, -1986, -1987, 10/20/16) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Denying petition for rehearing and confirming the Court's earlier order. “The Board's vacatur of its...more

Troutman Pepper

When Can Common Sense be Relied Upon to Find an Invention Obvious?

Troutman Pepper on

All patent practitioners recognize that a single prior art reference can be used to reject claims in an obviousness rejection. However, the issue is whether the Patent Office must provide additional evidence, above and beyond...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

Morris James LLP

Summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity is denied

Morris James LLP on

The disputed patent relates to communication terminal equipment and call incoming control method. The parties dispute whether there is sufficient structure to describe an alert sound generator, or whether the term is...more

Genova Burns LLC

Federal Circuit Gives Samsung Another Victory Against Apple In The Smartphone Patent War

Genova Burns LLC on

In another twist of fortunes in the long-running smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has once again overturned Apple’s patent infringement jury verdict – this...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Multiplying Claim Requirements After Trial Makes Things Impermissibly Complex (Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.)

McDermott Will & Emery on

After a jury found non-infringement and invalidity of two asserted patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the patent owner’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Cuozzo Expanded to CBMs to Bar Appellate Review of Institution Decisions - SightSound Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc.

Addressing the bar on appellate reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that § 324(e) bars review of the Board’s decision to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2016

Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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