News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Litigation Apple

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Healthtech Patents: What Alivecor v. Apple Means for AI-Powered Innovation

Fenwick & West LLP on

A major Federal Circuit ruling just sent a clear message to AI-driven healthtech companies: AI alone won’t get you a patent....more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO’s Rescission of its Discretionary Denial Memorandum - Much Ado About Nothing?

Womble Bond Dickinson on

In May 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. (IPR2020-00019) denied institution of Apple’s petition in view of the advanced state of a parallel district court litigation and in...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Rescission of the Fintiv Guidance Memorandum, and What Comes Next

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Patent and Trade Office (PTO) on February 28, 2025, rescinded former PTO Director Kathi Vidal's June 21, 2022, memorandum (Memorandum) addressing discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) of patents that are...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO Rescinds 2022 Guidance on Discretionary Denials

Fish & Richardson on

On February 28, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced that it has rescinded the June 21, 2022, memorandum about discretionary denials in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post-grant proceedings with...more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

Fenwick & West LLP

Key Federal Circuit Patent Rulings Impacting Your Business - Recent Rulings

Fenwick & West LLP on

In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, the Federal Circuit expanded the preclusive effect of non-infringement rulings. It ruled that prior judgments of non-infringement can prevent follow-on lawsuits involving...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Precluded, Not Repeated: WARF & Apple Continue to Shape our Understanding of Issue Preclusion in Patent Law

This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Expert Need Not Have Acquired the Requisite Skill Level Prior to the Time of the Invention

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...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

Fenwick & West LLP

Judge Alan D. Albright Authors First Federal Circuit Opinion

Fenwick & West LLP on

Judge Alan D. Albright, sitting by designation at the Federal Circuit, penned his inaugural appellate decision in Apple v. Omni MedSci on Friday. The unanimous ruling favored Apple, who contested Omni MedSci’s patent via...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

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.

2023 ITC Section 337 Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: The Public Interest Impact – Considerations from AliveCor and Masimo

The year 2023 was marked by two landmark Commission determinations resulting in exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against a popular consumer wearable—the Apple Watch. both investigations focused on health...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

IPR Decision Based on a Barely Mentioned Typo Violated the APA Notice Requirement

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD. Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert...more

Jones Day

Director Demonstrates Ability to Review Non-Dispositive PTAB Determinations

Jones Day on

On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...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

159 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"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