The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Focus Products Group Int’l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., 156 F.4th 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2025), serves as an important reminder that what patent applicants say and do not say during prosecution...more
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), as applied during USPTO examination, is often described as a “broad” claim construction standard. That description is accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete in a way that...more
On February 11, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) denied a motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court’s claim construction order defining terms in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning, filed...more
On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in the Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and...more
On October 24, 2025, the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its decision in Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v. First Plast, dismissing claims for literal infringement and infringement by equivalence...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners....more
In Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., No. 2023-1446 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed patent infringement findings, holding that a patentee’s failure to contest an...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of noninfringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness, concluding that the court correctly construed the claims and properly determined...more
Every October, we’re reminded that the scariest things are often the ones you don’t see coming. For patent owners, that’s true year-round. Beneath the surface of even the most impressive-looking portfolios can lurk hidden...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a wide array of issues in a long-running dispute over shower curtain technology. The Court provided important guidance on patent claim scope using intrinsic evidence,...more
On September 23, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part, decisions from the United States District Court for the...more
When a product or process does not literally infringe a patent’s claim language, the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) holds that a competitor’s product or process may still infringe if it is substantially equivalent to the...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC. Overview - This case addresses prosecution history estoppel and the doctrine of equivalence....more
Method-of-treatment (“MoT”) claims can be powerful tools for pharmaceutical companies seeking to extend market exclusivity for their products after the original composition-of-matter patents expire. However, the District of...more
In October 2023, we reported on the district court decision in Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC. The decision was notable for reviving the prosecution laches doctrine to render unenforceable a continuation patent filed 13 years...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that cancellation of a claim during prosecution may give rise to prosecution history estoppel, precluding the patentee from recapturing the surrendered subject...more
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more
In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 25-1228, The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a dosing regimen with unequal loading doses were not obvious and that a presumption of...more
Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution....more
On July 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million jury verdict in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, No. 2023-2153, finding that Colibri’s infringement claim under...more
On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma in which the court interpreted the transition phrase “consisting essentially of” to be a closed term excluding other...more
COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more
TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application...more
On July 18, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court ruling in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentees’ doctrine...more