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
In Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment in which the asserted patents were directed to an abstract idea and, thus, patent-ineligible....more
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
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 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
2023 was an exciting year for Section 337 litigation at the ITC and 2024 is off to an equally interesting start. In this article, Libbie DiMarco reviews five of the most interesting recent developments in Section 337...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
The year 2023 was marked by two landmark Commission determinations resulting in exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against a popular consumer wearable—the Apple Watch. both investigations focused on health...more
In June 2015, Apple began using the mark APPLE MUSIC for its streaming services and filed a trademark application seeking to register the mark for production and distribution of sound recordings and arranging, organizing,...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
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
2023 was an exciting year for Section 337 litigation at the ITC, particularly in the final quarter of the year. As we ring in the new year, Wolf Greenfield Shareholder Libbie DiMarco examines five of the most noteworthy ITC...more
In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit partially signed off on Apple’s win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a number of patents owned by Corephotonics relating to dual-aperture...more
In a report by IPlytics, published today, they have confirmed what most in the business already presumed: that ownership of 5G standard essential patents (SEPs) is becoming increasingly fragmented. That means, as each patent...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
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
Last week, in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit left intact Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s ruling of unenforceability based on prosecution laches and deprived Personalized Media...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