5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Supplemental Examination: A Tool Worth Further Consideration - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
JONES DAY TALKS®: PTAB Litigation Blog Reaches 500 Posts ... and the PTAB Reacts to COVID-19
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $66 million dollar judgment against beauty industry giant L’Oréal for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and a related breach...more
[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all...more
On August 3, 2020, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified its decision in TomTom v. Adolph regarding limiting claim preambles, holding that the preamble of the claim at issue could not be...more
In what may be simple happenstance, the Federal Circuit issued opinions on the same day reversing a District Court grant of summary judgment in opinions written by Judge Lourie, here in BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co....more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
A federal court in Wisconsin recently awarded Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. more than $5.4 million in damages, based on a patent infringement claim brought against Sorenson Communications and CaptionCalls...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: When the Federal Circuit holds that a combination of references...more
A Post-URAA Patent that Issues After but Expires Before a Related Pre-URAA Patent Is Not a Double-Patenting Reference Against the Pre-URAA Patent - In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.,...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Summary: (1) To uphold a jury verdict of infringement, evidence must...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Wallach, Linn and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: In determining whether to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927,...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Summary: A patent claim having multiple permutations is only enabled if each and...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Summary: (1) The public use bar is not triggered by experimental use...more
This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more
Supreme Court of Canada strikes down "promise doctrine", upholds AstraZeneca’s NEXIUM patent as useful - As previously reported, on June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada granted AstraZeneca’s appeal in the NEXIUM...more
In a Section 101 analysis under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., “[a]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”—even if individual claim...more