Podcast: IP(DC): Inside Patent Reform Efforts, Anticipated Federal Circuit Appeals, and Patent Cases of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more
On April 15, 2025, Biocon announced it reached a settlement agreement with Regeneron, dismissing CAFC Appeal No. 24-2002 and Case No. 1:22-cv-00061 (N.D.W. Va.) / MDL 1:24-md-03103 (N.D.W. Va.) and allowing the...more
On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court misconstrued claim terms based on a misapplication of the clear and unequivocal disavowal standard and vacated its noninfringement decision. Maquet...more
As we predicted in our 2023 report, 2024 was a banner year for design rights in the U.S. and elsewhere. In last year’s report, we noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed to consider en banc...more
On October 31, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding that two of Centripetal Network,...more
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., 2024 WL 3836107 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - On August 24, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dismissed an appeal for lack of standing after a...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sparked debate following a recent ruling on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) application of estoppel provisions in invalidating amended claims in inter partes...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
On July 26, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld and expounded on the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). The CAFC confirmed that the Patent...more
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more
In 2018, Hunting Titan, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422 (“the ’422 patent”), which is owned by DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, a manufacturer of industrial explosives. In...more
Parties filing inter partes review (IPR) petitions should be aware of the estoppel implications on subsequent or parallel proceedings, including litigation pending in U.S. federal district courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals...more
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
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
The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ..WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION [OPINION] (2020-1041, April 6, 2021) (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL) - Dyk, J. Affirming related district court judgments holding...more
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the issue of estoppel (or...more
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision M & K Holdings v. Samsung Electronics Co., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in finding certain...more
In 2017, Cytonome filed suit in the Western District of Wisconsin (“the District Court”), accusing ABS of infringing six of its patents, including US Patent No. 8,529,161 (“the ’161 patent”). Subsequently, in October 2017,...more
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that it may not rely on evidence and arguments that fall outside the scope of the instituted grounds...more