News & Analysis as of

Patents Apple Intellectual Property Protection

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

Knobbe Martens

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over IPRs Challenging Expired Patents

Knobbe Martens on

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Beyond Money: The Rise of Branding as the Ultimate Asset

Attention is the hottest commodity any company can acquire today. How can you capture attention in an increasingly competitive market where individuals have more information and access than ever before? By crafting a...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 30, 2024

Alston & Bird on

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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Jones Day on

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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On Estoppel Provision Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i)

A&O Shearman on

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

Jones Day

Road Mapping Leads to Dead End

Jones Day on

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

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Top Five Recent Developments in Section 337 Litigation

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

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

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Federal Circuit Cases Exploring a Year of Rules, Rulemaking, and Rule Enforcement at...

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

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Bertini v. Apple Inc., 63 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023)...

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

Jones Day

Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

Jones Day on

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

WilmerHale

FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape - January 2024

WilmerHale on

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

Woods Rogers

Think Patents Don’t Have Teeth? Think Again

Woods Rogers on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Some Touch Up Needed: The Federal Circuit Partially Confirms the PTAB’s View of Analogous Art

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

Troutman Pepper Locke

EDVA Judge Rules That Geolocation Patents Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Troutman Pepper Locke on

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

Jones Day

Error In Declaration Insufficient To Sink IPR

Jones Day on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2023

Knobbe Martens on

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

Hudnell Law Group

Federal Circuit Revives Big Tech’s Fintiv Challenge

Hudnell Law Group on

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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom...

Caltech sued Broadcom and Apple for infringement, asserting three of its data transmission patents against Broadcom’s WiFi chips and certain Apple products that incorporate those chips. Apple then filed IPR petitions...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Knobbe Martens

Notice Letters and Communications May Form a Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. ZIPIT WIRELESS, INC. [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Hughes, Mayer and Stoll.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Notice letters and related...more

Knobbe Martens

Effects of Proximity, Plurals, and Passive Voice for Claim Construction

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY - Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning...more

Jones Day

Don’t Save The Best: Federal Circuit Confirms Broad IPR Estoppel

Jones Day on

The patent fight between Caltech and Broadcom/Apple made waves this month when the Federal Circuit vacated the $1.1 billion infringement award that Caltech had won in district court....more

Goldberg Segalla

Federal Circuit Clarifies IPR Estoppel and Vacates $1.1 Billion Verdict in Favor of Caltech Due to Improper Damages Theory

Goldberg Segalla on

On February 4, 2022, the Federal Circuit clarified that IPR estoppel extends to all claims and invalidity grounds that the petitioner could have reasonably asserted in its IPR petition. ...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Overrules Shaw And Broadens IPR Estoppel In District Court Proceedings

Knobbe Martens on

California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Inc. and Apple Inc. Before Lourie, Linn, and Dyk (concurring/dissenting).  Appeal from the District Court for the Central District of California - Summary: IPR estoppel in...more

39 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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