Shows
Condensed IPJiaxing Super Lighting v. CH Lighting (Fed. Cir., July 28, 2025) 2023-1715This decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerns an appeal concerning a patent infringement lawsuit between Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (Super Lighting) and CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. (CH Lighting). The case revolves around three LED lighting patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125 ('125), 10,352,540 ('540), and 9,939,140 ('140). The court affirms the jury's finding that the '140 patent was infringed and not invalid, but reverses and remands for a new trial regarding the validity of the '125 and '540 patents due to the lower court's erroneous exclusion of evidence. Consequently, the...2025-07-2916 minCondensed IPSunkist Growers v. Intrastate Distributors (Fed. Cir., July 23, 2025) 2024-1212This opinion concerns an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, focusing on a trademark dispute between Sunkist Growers, Inc. and Intrastate Distributors, Inc. (IDI). Sunkist appealed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision that dismissed its opposition to IDI's applications to register the KIST mark for soft drinks, arguing a likelihood of confusion with its SUNKIST marks. The Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board's findings regarding the similarity of the marks were not supported by sufficient evidence and that the other factors weighed heavily toward a likelihood...2025-07-2810 minCondensed IPIGT v. Zynga (Fed. Cir., July 22, 2025) 2023-2262This decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerns an appeal between IGT and Zynga Inc. stemming from a patent dispute. The core of the conflict revolves around IGT's patent, "Secured Virtual Network in a Gaming Environment," which Zynga challenged for obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR). The court evaluates whether an earlier interference proceeding should have prevented Zynga's IPR challenge due to interference estoppel, ultimately affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision to allow the IPR and its finding that IGT's patent claims were unpatentable as obvious. The document also...2025-07-2515 minCondensed IPColibri Heart Valve v. Medtronic Corevalve (Fed. Cir., July 18, 2025) 2023-2153This Federal Circuit opinion addresses an appeal regarding a patent infringement lawsuit between Colibri Heart Valve LLC and Medtronic CoreValve, LLC. The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, owned by Colibri, which describes a method for implanting artificial heart valves with a "do-over" or recapture mechanism. Colibri accused Medtronic of inducing infringement of this patent through the use of Medtronic's "Evolut" heart valve products. The court ultimately reversed a lower court's decision, ruling that prosecution history estoppel prevented Colibri from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to the cancellation of a related claim...2025-07-2214 minCondensed IPTop Brand v. Cozy Comfort (Fed. Cir., July 17, 2025) 2024-2191This Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal of a patent and trademark infringement case between Top Brand LLC and Cozy Comfort Company LLC. Cozy Comfort had previously won a jury verdict claiming that Top Brand infringed on its design patent for an oversized hooded sweatshirt and its trademarks for "THE COMFY" wearable blankets. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Top Brand was not liable for design patent infringement because Cozy Comfort had surrendered certain design features during the patent application process, and these features were present in Top Brand's products. Additionally, the court concluded there...2025-07-2113 minCondensed IPShockwave Medical vs. Cardiovascular Systems (Fed. Cir., July 14, 2025) 2023-1864This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated July 14, 2025, concerns a patent dispute between Shockwave Medical, Inc. and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. The case involves an inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,956,371, which covers a shockwave balloon catheter system for treating atherosclerosis. The core issue revolves around the patentability of claims within Shockwave's patent, specifically whether certain claims were obvious based on prior art. The court ultimately affirms the Board's finding that most of Shockwave's claims were unpatentable, while reversing the Board's decision regarding claim 5, deeming it also unpatentable. The opinion...2025-07-2113 minCondensed IPEgenera v. Cisco (Fed. Cir., July 7, 2025) 2023-1428This decision concerns an appeal by Egenera, Inc. against Cisco Systems, Inc. before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Egenera, the plaintiff-appellant, alleged that Cisco's Unified Computing System (UCS) infringed upon claims of its U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430. The appeal addresses the lower court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for claims 1 and 5, and its denial of Egenera's post-trial motions regarding claims 3 and 7 after a jury found no infringement. The court ultimately affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no errors in its handling of the claims or its procedural rulings.This podcast is...2025-07-1517 minCondensed IPEye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma (Fed. Cir., June 30, 2025) 2023-2173This episode concerns an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, focusing on a patent dispute between Eye Therapies, LLC, and Slayback Pharma, LLC. The core of the appeal revolves around the interpretation of a patent claim for a method of reducing eye redness using brimonidine, specifically the phrase "consisting essentially of." Eye Therapies challenged a prior decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which had deemed their patent unpatentable, arguing the Board misinterpreted this key phrase to allow for other active ingredients. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's claim construction, ruling...2025-07-0311 minCondensed IPOPTIS v. Apple (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2025) 2022-1904This opinion concerns an appeal in the case of Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The core of the dispute involves Optis's claims that Apple infringed on five of its standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to LTE technology, used in iPhones, iPads, and Watches. The court vacated earlier judgments on infringement and damages, mandating a new trial due to a non-unanimous jury verdict on infringement and the improper inclusion of an Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement as evidence for damages. Additionally, the court reversed previous rulings regarding the patent...2025-06-1811 minCondensed IPAncora v. Roku (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2025) 2023-1674This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal involving Ancora Technologies, Inc. against Roku, Inc., VIZIO, Inc., and Nintendo Co., Ltd. The core of the dispute revolves around the patentability of Ancora's U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, which concerns software for restricting unauthorized use of licensed programs. Specifically, the court reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that claims of the patent were unpatentable due to obviousness, particularly focusing on the interpretation of the term "agent" within the patent's claims and the nexus analysis of objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as...2025-06-1716 minCondensed IPAgilent v Synthego (Fed. Cir., June 11, 2025) 2023-2186This Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal from Agilent Technologies, Inc. against Synthego Corp., concerning the patentability of gene-editing technology related to CRISPR-Cas systems. Agilent appealed decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found all claims of Agilent's U.S. Patent Nos. 10,337,001 and 10,900,034 unpatentable due to anticipation or obviousness based on prior art. The core of the dispute revolves around whether earlier works, particularly "Pioneer Hi-Bred," "Threlfall," and "Deleavey," expressly disclosed or enabled the chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) and their functionality as claimed by Agilent. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial evidence...2025-06-1518 minCondensed IPUSAA v. PNC Bank (Fed. Cir., June 12, 2025) 2023-1639This is a Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent dispute between United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and PNC Bank N.A., heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The core of the appeal concerns the patent eligibility of USAA's "Digital Camera Processing System" patent, specifically U.S. Patent No. 10,769,598, U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638, and U.S. Patent No. 9,224,136, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court applied the two-step Alice test to determine if the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether they contained an inventive concept. Ultimately, the court reversed t...2025-06-1411 minCondensed IPFraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio (Fed. Cir., June 9, 2025) 2023-2267This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement case between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and Sirius XM Radio Inc. The core issue revolves around equitable estoppel, a legal defense where a party is prevented from asserting a claim due to their misleading conduct and another party's detrimental reliance on that conduct. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM, finding that while Fraunhofer's five-year silence constituted misleading conduct, there was a dispute of material fact regarding Sirius XM's reliance on that silence when making business decisions...2025-06-1313 minCondensed IPDolby Laboratories Licensing v. Unified Patents (Fed. Cir., June 5, 2025) 2023-2110This Federal Circuit opinion relates to an appeal from Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) against Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) regarding a patent dispute. The core issue revolves around Dolby's lack of standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) decision, as determined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dolby attempted to argue standing based on a statutory right to appeal as a "dissatisfied" party, a supposed informational right to know all real parties in interest (RPIs) in the patent review, and various speculative harms, but the court rejected all these arguments. The...2025-06-1213 minCondensed IPAlnylam v. Moderna, (Fed. Cir., June 4, 2025) 2023-2357This Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against Moderna, Inc., regarding a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the patent term “branched alkyl” within Alnylam's U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, specifically whether the alpha-position carbon must be bound to at least three other carbon atoms (tertiary or quaternary) or if two are sufficient (secondary). The District Court for the District of Delaware initially ruled in favor of Moderna, interpreting Alnylam as having acted as its own lexicographer by defining the term in a way t...2025-06-1115 minCondensed IPSigray v. Carl Zeiss: Patent Anticipation and Obviousness (Fed. Cir., May 23, 2025) 2023-2211This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Sigray, Inc. and Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Zeiss, which covers X-ray imaging systems with projection magnification. Sigray challenged the patent's validity through an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), arguing certain claims were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, specifically a reference called Jorgensen. The Court of Appeals reversed the PTAB's decision concerning claims 1, 3, and 4, finding they were indeed anticipated by Jorgensen due...2025-06-0309 minCondensed IPRebecca Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings (Fed. Cir., May 22, 2025) 2023-2140This is an opinion from the Federal Circuit addressing whether a consumer, Rebecca Curtin, had the legal right, or statutory standing, to oppose a trademark registration for "RAPUNZEL" covering dolls and toy figures. The case explores the requirements for bringing an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 of the Lanham Act, particularly focusing on whether a consumer's interests fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the statute and if their alleged harm is proximately caused by the registration, applying the framework established in the Supreme Court's Lexmark decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision t...2025-05-3007 minCondensed IPIn re Foster (Fed. Cir., May 7, 2025) 2023-1527This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.2025-05-2107 minCondensed IPRegents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (Fed. Cir., May 12, 2025) 2022-1594This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent interference proceeding between The Regents of the University of California and The Broad Institute. The core dispute involves priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system using single-guide RNA for editing DNA in eukaryotic cells. The court reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decisions on conception and written description of the invention, ultimately affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding the case regarding the main appeal, while dismissing The Broad Institute's cross-appeal as moot. The court found that the Board legally erred in its...2025-05-1910 minCondensed IPIngenico v. IOENGINE (Fed. Cir., May 7, 2025) 2023-1367This is a decision on an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC. The core issue is IOENGINE's appeal of a jury verdict and subsequent court decisions which found certain patent claims invalid due to prior art, specifically a device known as the DiskOnKey System, including its Firmware Upgrader. IOENGINE argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the DiskOnKey System as prior art under "public use" or "on sale" laws and that the district court made errors in jury instructions and allowing certain evidence...2025-05-1311 minCondensed IPIn re Kostic (Fed. Cir., May 6, 2025) 2023-1437This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of IN RE: MIODRAG KOSTIC, GUY VANDEVELDE, concerning their appeal from a United States Patent and Trademark Office decision. The case centers on a reissue application for U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, titled "System for Conducting an Exchange of Click-Through Traffic on Internet Web Sites." The core issue is whether a reissued claim (claim 3) improperly broadened the scope of the original patent claims, which is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) when the application is filed more than two years a...2025-05-0707 minCondensed IPFintiv v. PayPal (Fed. Cir., April 30, 2025) 2023-2312This is an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement lawsuit between Fintiv, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. Fintiv sued PayPal, asserting infringement of four patents related to a "cloud-based transaction system". The core issue on appeal is the district court's ruling that certain claim terms, specifically "payment handler" and "payment handler service," are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The court examined whether these terms constitute means-plus-function limitations and if the patent specifications provide sufficient corresponding structure or an algorithm for the claimed functions, ultimately affirming the district court's decision th...2025-05-0109 minCondensed IPPT Medisafe Technologies v. USPTO (Fed. Cir., April 29, 2025) 2023-1573This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding PT Medisafe Technologies' attempt to register a dark green color for medical examination gloves as a trademark. The court affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which had denied registration because the proposed color mark was found to be generic. Applying a two-step test specifically for color marks, the court agreed that the color was too common within the relevant class of goods (chloroprene medical examination gloves) to identify a single source. Therefore, the court concluded that the proposed mark...2025-04-3008 minCondensed IPQualcomm v. Apple (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2025) 2023-1208This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning an appeal involving Qualcomm Incorporated and Apple Inc., with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an intervenor. The core issue revolves around Apple's challenge to a Qualcomm patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Specifically, the dispute focuses on whether Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) can form "the basis" of a ground for challenging a patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits such grounds to "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." The c...2025-04-2909 minCondensed IPRecentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir., April 18, 2025) 2023-2437This episode is about a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent dispute between Recentive Analytics, Inc. and Fox Corp. The core issue on appeal is the patent eligibility of Recentive's patents, which relate to using machine learning for generating television broadcast schedules and network maps. The district court had dismissed Recentive's case, finding the patents were directed to ineligible abstract ideas. The Court of Appeals affirms this decision, concluding that merely applying generic machine...2025-04-2408 minCondensed IPSage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir., April 15, 2025) 2023-1603This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Sage Products, LLC and the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Sage appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that certain claims in two of its patents were unpatentable based on prior art. The court reviewed the Board's findings concerning anticipation, the knowledge of a skilled artisan, and alleged procedural errors, ultimately affirming the Board's judgment that Sage's patent claims were anticipated by prior...2025-04-2109 minCondensed IPIn re Forest (Fed. Cir., April 3, 2025) 2023-1178This is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal by Donald K. Forest. The central issue is whether the Patent Office can grant a patent, specifically U.S. Patent Application No. 15/391,116, after its potential twenty-year term has already expired. The court ultimately dismisses Forest's appeal, reasoning that patent law, particularly 35 U.S.C. § 154, intends provisional rights to exist as a temporary precursor to, and in conjunction with, the standard exclusionary rights of a patent, which cannot exist if the patent term has lapsed. Therefore, an expired patent cannot confer either ex...2025-04-1209 minCondensed IPIn re Riggs (Fed. Cir., March 24, 2025) 2022-1945This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses a dispute concerning a patent application for an integrated logistics system. The core issue revolves around whether a prior published patent application, referred to as Lettich, can be considered prior art against the current application. The court is specifically examining if Lettich can claim the earlier filing date of its provisional application, which would impact its status as prior art. Ultimately, the court vacates and remands the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision because the Board did not adequately analyze whether...2025-04-1209 minCondensed IPMaquet Cardiovascular v. Abiomed (Fed. Cir., Mar 21, 2025) 2023-2045This Federal Circuit opinion details an appeal by Maquet Cardiovascular against a district court's judgment that Abiomed did not infringe Maquet's U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783, which concerns intravascular blood pump systems. The appeal specifically challenges the lower court's interpretation of certain terms within the patent claims, arguing that the district court improperly applied prosecution disclaimer to narrow their meaning. The appellate court agreed with Maquet, finding errors in the district court's claim constructions regarding the "guide mechanism" and "guide wire" limitations. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of non-infringement for the '783 patent and remanded the...2025-04-1013 min