News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Intellectual Property Litigation Appellate Courts

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Product-by-Process Analysis: Invalidity ≠ Infringement

On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Pulling the Cord on Unstated Claims Limitations

Knobbe Martens on

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. Before Lourie, Linn, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida - The district court erred in construing the term “pull...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Apply to Unchallenged IPR Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that certain challenged patent claims were unpatentable based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, the patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2025 #3

Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that appellants Bearbox and Austin Storms—Bearbox’s...more

Knobbe Martens

A Patent Must Describe What Is Claimed, Not What Infringes

Knobbe Martens on

Before Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: A patent was not invalid for lack of written description for failing to describe the specific infringing embodiment...more

5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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