News & Analysis as of

Evidence Patent Litigation

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Not So Fast: Judge Hellerstein Seeks More Evidence Before Finding Inequitable Conduct

Recently, United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein accepted in part the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo. A detailed summary of Judge Figueredo’s decision was the subject of a prior...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Expert had firm grip on Rule 702

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an exclusion of expert testimony and grant of judgment as a matter of law, finding that the district court improperly conflated admissibility with credibility and...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

PTAB Overly Relied on Statements of Doubt in Determining Conception and Reduction to Practice in Interference Proceedings

In Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of conception and reduction to practice as related to the written description of multiple patent applications. ...more

BakerHostetler

Gatekeeping in Flux (Again?): The Federal Circuit Revisits Expert Admissibility

BakerHostetler on

The Federal Circuit’s ongoing struggle over how aggressively district courts should police expert testimony has once again divided the court, exposing a fundamental disagreement about the proper limits of Rule 702....more

Integreon

eDiscovery Best Practices in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Integreon on

Pharmaceutical companies generate vast data during drug development and regulatory processes, making eDiscovery complex due to data volume, sensitivity, and compliance. Efficient eDiscovery solutions are essential to manage...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Equivalents still requires all elements be met, injunctive relief still governed by eBay factors

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc.

This week’s Case of the Week includes a potpourri of issues following a jury trial and issuance of a permanent injunction against Evenflo based on patents directed to child car seats....more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Vague definitions deflate tire trade secret claims

McDermott Will & Schulte on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the plaintiff failed to prove misappropriation of five alleged trade secrets related to self-inflating tire...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

“Hole E Evidence, Batman”: Judge Liman Denies Contempt Motion Based on Lack of Competent and Direct Evidence

On November 18, 2025, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to hold Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe (“Qingdao”) and Vivicute Limited in...more

DLA Piper

UPC Compass: Prior Art Under Pressure – Striking the Balance Between Efficiency and Fair Trial

DLA Piper on

A recent decision by the Milan Central Division (CD) of 23 October 2025 could create further obstacles for prior art submissions, highlighting the growing focus on procedural efficiency in patent litigation before the Unified...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Reframing the claim: Plain and ordinary meaning falls to lexicography

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s construction of a claim, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of a disputed term was redefined by the patentee under principles of...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

In re Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) Patent Litigation (Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. MSN Pharms. Inc.)

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Novartis holds the NDA for Entresto, a drug used to treat heart failure, having the active ingredients sacubitril and valsartan. The ’918 patent is not an Orange Book-listed patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Expert Testimony Fails to Support Jury’s Infringement Verdict

Knobbe Martens on

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC - Before Moore, Linn, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Unclear and internally inconsistent expert testimony was not...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms JMOL Of No Damages in Surgical Stapler Patent Dispute

A&O Shearman on

On October 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judges Dyk, Prost, and Stoll) (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the District of Delaware’s judgment in a patent infringement action holding that Rex...more

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Says Where Expert Evidence is Insufficient, Patent Damages Can Be Nominal

White & Case LLP on

On October 2, 2025, in Rex Medical, LP v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Nos. 2024-1072, 2024-1125, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's preclusion of Rex's patent damages expert from...more

K&L Gates LLP

Patent Victory? Here’s When You Decide Between Damages or an Account of Profits

K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Court of Australia has clarified when a successful patentee must make an election for pecuniary relief in Vehicle Monitoring Systems Pty Ltd (VMS) v SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (SARB) (No 13) [2025] FCA 1078....more

Jones Day

Show Me the Evidence: Primary References Still Required after LKQ

Jones Day on

Federal Circuit decisions applying the new standards for design-patent obviousness continue to inform how patent challengers should frame their plans of attack, both in the PTAB and in the courts. In Dynamite Marketing, Inc....more

McDermott Will & Schulte

What we have here is a failure to communicate: Expert must map all claim limitations to the accused infringement

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed jury verdicts of infringement, finding that they were not supported by substantial evidence because of deficiencies in the patent owner’s expert testimony. Finesse...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Appeal No. 2024-1039 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit struck down a $166.3 million damages award against AT&T and Nokia of America Corp.,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

IP Hot Topic: “Confusing and Unclear” Expert Testimony Results in Loss of $166.3 Million Jury Verdict

On Wednesday, September 24, the Federal Circuit set aside a $166.3 million patent infringement verdict in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 24-1039 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025). The Court held that the jury’s verdict...more

Miller Johnson

No Fuel For Games: Federal Circuit Rejects Shifting Litigation Tactics 

Miller Johnson on

Magēmā Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, No. 24-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) - On September 8, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in Magēmā Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, which held that the district...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Narrows Prosecution Laches in Google v. Sonos

In Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in part a district court ruling that had held Sonos’s “Zone Scene” patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches. The Federal Circuit...more

King & Spalding

USPTO Acting Director Stewart Clarifies PTAB Treatment of Other Proceedings

King & Spalding on

On September 16, 2025, acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart released a memo instructing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that if the Board is considering claims that have “already been adjudicated” before the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars

The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury...more

A&O Shearman

A Defendant Cannot Withhold Evidence or Contend Evidence is Unnecessary During Discovery but Argue at Trial That Plaintiff Cannot...

A&O Shearman on

Plaintiff Magēmā Technology LLC (“Magēmā”) sued Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP (together, “Phillips”) asserting two patents related to making residual heavy marine fuel oil (“HMFO”) with low sulfur content....more

288 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 12

"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