Shows
Condensed IPNetflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC (Fed. Cir., February 13, 2026) 2024-1541This episode concerns a legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses a patent dispute between Netflix and DivX regarding streaming technology. The core of the conflict involves the interpretation of claim construction for a patent describing how playback devices locate and decrypt partially encrypted video. Originally, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of DivX by narrowly defining where encryption information must be stored within a data stream. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, applying standard grammatical principles to conclude that the patent does not strictly require encryption data...
2026-02-1710 minCondensed IPApple v Squires (Fed. Cir., 2024-1864) February 13, 2026In this episode of the podcast, we discuss the decision in Apple v. Squires in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not required to use formal notice-and-comment rulemaking when issuing instructions for denying patent reviews. The dispute centered on the NHK-Fintiv factors, which guide the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in deciding whether to decline inter partes review when parallel district court litigation is pending. The court determined these instructions are general statements of policy rather than substantive rules because they do not bind the...
2026-02-1412 minCondensed IPIngevity Corp. v. BASF Corp. (Fed. Cir., February 11, 2026) 2024-1577In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms a judgment against Ingevity Corporation for violating federal antitrust laws through an illegal tying arrangement. The core of the dispute involves Ingevity conditioning the licensing of its automotive emissions patent on the requirement that customers exclusively purchase its unpatented carbon honeycombs, which the jury determined were staple goods with substantial non-infringing uses. Because these honeycombs were found to be common articles of commerce rather than components unique to the patented invention, the court rejected Ingevity's claims of patent misuse protection and litigation immunity. Ultimately, the...
2026-02-1210 minCondensed IPGoTV Streaming v. Netflix (Fed. Cir., February 9, 2026) 2024-1669In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses a patent dispute between GoTV Streaming and Netflix regarding technologies for tailoring digital content to specific wireless device capabilities. Although the court clarifies that certain patent terms are not invalid for indefiniteness, it ultimately rules that the underlying inventions are ineligible for patenting under Section 101. The judges conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea—using a generic template to format data—and fail to provide a specific inventive concept that improves computer functionality itself. Consequently, the court reverses the prior judgment for GoTV...
2026-02-1110 minCondensed IPRange of Motion Products v. Armaid (Fed. Cir., February 2, 2026) 2023-2427This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which details a patent dispute where Range of Motion Products accused Armaid Company of infringing on its design patent for a body massaging device. The court ultimately affirmed a summary judgment of non-infringement, concluding that the accused "Armaid2" was plainly dissimilar to the patented design once functional elements were filtered out. A central theme of the ruling is the claim construction process, which requires judges to distinguish between ornamental features protected by the patent and functional aspects dictated by the tool's utility. In...
2026-02-0409 minCondensed IPSound View Innovations v. Hulu (Fed. Cir., January 29, 2026) 2024-1092In this episode, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Hulu, ruling it did not infringe Sound View’s streaming patent. Although the court rejected a narrow "specialized buffer" definition, it held Claim 16 requires a specific order of operations: receiving a request before allocation.This 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.
2026-02-0309 minCondensed IPUS Patent 7,679,637 v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir., January 22, 2026) 2024-1520This episode concerns a judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit brought against Google. The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637, which describes a web conferencing system that allows users to review recorded segments of a presentation while it is still occurring. The court concluded that the patent is legally invalid because it focuses on the abstract idea of asynchronous content review rather than a specific technological breakthrough. Furthermore, the judges found that the invention lacked an inventive concept, as it...
2026-01-2411 minCondensed IPBarry v. DePuy Synthes Companies (Fed. Cir., January 20, 2026) 2023-2226This episode concerns an opinion in Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewing a district court's decision to exclude critical expert testimony and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant. The dispute centers on patent infringement allegations regarding surgical tools and techniques used to correct spinal deformities through a method known as "en bloc derotation." While the lower court dismissed the testimony of Dr. Yassir and Dr. Neal as unreliable and contradictory, the appellate court ruled that these exclusions were an abuse of discretion...
2026-01-2210 minCondensed IPCrocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir., January 8, 2026) 2024-1300This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolving a dispute between Crocs, Inc. and the International Trade Commission regarding trademark infringement of the "Classic Clog" design. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning active competitors because Crocs failed to file its challenge within the required 60-day window following the initial no-violation finding. Although Crocs argued that the timeline should be paused during a presidential review period, the court ruled that such delays only apply to findings of actual violations, not exonerations. Additionally, the court affirmed the Commission's decision...
2026-01-0911 minCondensed IPEthanol Boosting Systems v Ford Motor Co (Fed. Cir., December 23, 2025) 2024-1381This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate several patents owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). The legal dispute with Ford Motor Company centered on fuel management systems designed to reduce "engine knock" by using both direct and port fuel injection. The court rejected EBS’s procedural challenge regarding an alleged unauthorized stay of the proceedings, ruling that such institution-related decisions are generally shielded from judicial review. Furthermore, the court upheld a...
2025-12-2610 minCondensed IPMicron Technology v. Longhorn IP (Fed. Cir., December 18, 2025) 2023-2007In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal involving Micron Technology and patent licensing firms Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies. The dispute stems from a lower court's decision to apply the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, which required the licensing firms to post an $8 million bond after they were accused of "patent trolling." The appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order was not a final judgment and did not meet the strict criteria for an immediate interlocutory appeal. Consequently, the court refused to rule on...
2025-12-2408 minCondensed IPWonderland Switzerland AG v Evenflo Company (Fed. Cir., December 17, 2025) 2023-2043This episode is about an Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement case between Wonderland Switzerland AG and Evenflo Company, Inc. The central conflict involves Evenflo appealing a district court's judgment that its convertible car seats infringed upon two of Wonderland's patents, the '043 and '951 patents, which cover car seat technology. The Court of Appeals affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case, notably finding that no reasonable jury could find Evenflo's 4-in-1 seats infringed the '043 patent and reversing a permanent injunction against Evenflo for both patents due to...
2025-12-1810 minCondensed IPGame Plan v. Uninterrupted IP (Fed. Cir., December 10, 2025) 2024-1407This episode concerns a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, dated December 10, 2025, concerning a trademark dispute between Game Plan, Inc., the appellant, and Uninterrupted IP, LLC (UNIP), the appellee. The core issue is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that canceled Game Plan's registration for its stylized mark, which includes the phrase "I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE." The Federal Circuit considered two main arguments from Game Plan: that the TTAB erred in granting UNIP priority based on its acquisition of common law rights to a similar mark, and that...
2025-12-1208 minCondensed IPIn Re Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting (Fed. Cir., December 9, 2025) 2024-1118This episode presents an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co. concerning the registration of the trademark KAHWA. The court reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision, which had affirmed the examiner's refusal to register KAHWA for use in cafés and coffee shops. The initial refusals were based on arguments that KAHWA was generic or merely descriptive because it meant "coffee" in Arabic or referred to a specific Kashmiri green tea, but the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the Board's determination. The court f...
2025-12-1110 minCondensed IPIBM v. Zillow (Fed. Cir., December 9, 2025) 2024-1170This episode covers an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), the appellant, and Zillow Group, Inc., and Zillow, Inc. (Zillow), the cross-appellants. The appeal and cross-appeal stem from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) concerning the patentability of claims in IBM’s ’346 patent, which relates to single sign-on (SSO) operations. The court ultimately affirms the Board's decision, which had found certain claims unpatentable based on the prior art reference Sunada and had found other claims not unpatentable. Key issues addr...
2025-12-1010 minCondensed IPCoda v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (Fed. Cir., December 8, 2025) 2023-1880This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the appeal in the case of Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, which revolves around claims of trade secret misappropriation and a denial for the correction of inventorship for a Goodyear patent related to self-inflating tire (SIT) technology. The plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "Coda," were appealing a district court's decision that granted Goodyear judgment as a matter of law despite a jury previously finding in Coda's favor and awarding millions in damages. The appellate court affirms...
2025-12-0909 minCondensed IPAdnexus v Meta Platforms (Fed. Circ., December 5, 2025) 2024-1551This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of Adnexus Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., which concerns a patent infringement lawsuit. Adnexus, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against Meta for failure to state a claim, specifically focusing on whether Meta’s "Lead Ads" product infringed on a patent for an online advertising system. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the patent claim requiring the retrieval of a user profile that includes "delivery method preferences"; the district court ruled that Adnexus fa...
2025-12-0810 minCondensed IPSeagen v Daiichi Sankyo (Fed. Cir., December 2, 2025) 2023-2424This episode presents an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, resolving a patent dispute between Seagen Inc. and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. concerning an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) cancer treatment. Seagen had previously secured a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas finding that Daiichi's drug, Enhertu®, willfully infringed the ’039 patent and awarded Seagen over $41 million in damages. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), finding the ’039 patent to be invalid. The court ruled that the patent failed to meet the written descrip...
2025-12-0312 minCondensed IPIn Re Gesture Technology (Fed. Cir., December 1, 2025) 2025-1075This episode is about an Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2025, addressing an appeal by Gesture Technology Partners, LLC concerning the unpatentability of its ’431 patent. The case centered on an ex parte reexamination that proceeded despite the existence of two related inter partes reviews (IPRs) that had already found most claims invalid. Gesture challenged the Patent Office’s denial of its petition to terminate the review, arguing that IPR estoppel should apply against the requester (Samsung) to an ongoing ex parte proceeding, but the CAFC rejected this statutory interpretation, confirming that the...
2025-12-0209 minCondensed IPEscapeX v. Google (Fed. Cir., November 25, 2025) 2024-1201This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressing the appeal filed by EscapeX IP, LLC against a series of sanction rulings granted in favor of Google LLC. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the patent infringement case against Google was "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, largely because EscapeX failed to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation and proceeded with frivolous claims even after being repeatedly warned. EscapeX also appealed the denial of its motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), which the Federal Circuit agreed was properly den...
2025-11-3009 minCondensed IPAkamai Technologies v. Mediapointe, Inc., AMHC, Inc. (Fed. Cir., November 25, 2025) 2024-1571This episode presents an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent dispute involving Akamai Technologies, Inc. and MediaPointe, Inc. The appeal centered on patents describing an "intelligent distribution network" for streaming media, with the appellate court affirming the lower court’s final judgment on all contested issues. The court upheld the invalidity of multiple claims containing terms like "optimal" or "best" because the specification lacked the necessary objective boundaries or clear guidance for weighing various performance metrics such as latency and hops. For the remaining asserted claims, the court affirmed the gr...
2025-11-2609 minCondensed IPDuke University v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir., November 18, 2025) 2024-1078This episode regards an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., decided on November 18, 2025. The core issue is an appeal from Sandoz regarding a lower court's judgment that upheld the validity of claim 30 of U.S Patent No. 9,579,270, which relates to using specific prostaglandin F analogs for treating hair loss. Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC, the owners of the patent, had previously won a jury trial finding that Sandoz failed to prove the claim was invalid for lack of adequate written description and were...
2025-11-1908 minCondensed IPSmartrend v. Opti-Luxx Patent Appeals (Fed. Cir., November 13, 2025) 2024-1616This episode covers an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement case between Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc., and Opti-Luxx Inc. This judicial decision addresses two separate patents related to illuminated school bus signs, a design patent (D930) and a utility patent (’491). For the D930 patent, the appellate court vacates the infringement judgment and orders a new trial because the lower court incorrectly construed the patent term “transparency,” finding it erroneously synonymous with "translucent." Regarding the ’491 patent, the court reverses the denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Opti...
2025-11-1707 minCondensed IPCanatex Completion Solutions v. Wellmatics (Fed. Cir., November 12, 2025) 2024-1466This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, decided on November 12, 2025. The core issue of the appeal is whether the U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, owned by Canatex, is invalid for indefiniteness due to an alleged clerical error in the claims. Specifically, the patent uses the phrase “the connection profile of the second part,” which Canatex argued should be corrected to “first part” because the context of the invention, relating to a downhole oil and gas tool, makes the error evident...
2025-11-1411 minCondensed IPIn Re Motorola Solutions, Inc (Fed. Cir., November 6, 2025) 2025-134This episode is about a judicial order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dated November 6, 2025, concerning the case In Re MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. The court addresses Motorola Solutions' Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) following the PTO's de-institution of several inter partes reviews (IPRs) involving patents held by Stellar, LLC. The core of the dispute involves the Acting Director's rescission of prior guidance, known as the Vidal Memorandum, which related to the discretionary denial of IPRs based on parallel district court litigation using the Fintiv factors...
2025-11-1010 minCondensed IPMerck Serono v. Hopewell Pharma (Fed. Cir., October 30, 2025) 2025-1210This episode regards a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, dated October 30, 2025, concerning a patent dispute between Merck Serono S.A. and Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc. The case involves Merck's appeal of two consolidated inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which had found certain claims of two Merck patents related to an oral cladribine regimen for treating multiple sclerosis (MS) unpatentable as obvious. The primary legal issue reviewed is whether a prior art reference, the Bodor publication, was properly considered "by another" under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e), gi...
2025-11-0311 minCondensed IPAortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences (Fed. Cir., October 27, 2025) 2024-1145This episode relates to a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent infringement case, Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation decided October 27, 2025. The core dispute involves the correct claim construction of the term "outer frame" in patents concerning transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Aortic Innovations, appealed a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, which was based on the District Court of Delaware's construction of the claim term as a "self-expanding frame." The appellate court affirmed the district court's construction, agreeing that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer by consistently using "...
2025-10-2811 minCondensed IPCentripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks (Fed. Cir., October 22, 2025) 2023-2027This episode concerns a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al., decided on October 22, 2025. The core of the case involves Centripetal Networks appealing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held certain claims of their patent unpatentable as obvious. A significant issue addressed is Centripetal’s claim that the PTAB’s decision was "tainted" due to the belated recusal of an administrative patent judge (APJ) who held stock in one of the appellees, Cisco Systems, Inc. While the court affi...
2025-10-2312 minCondensed IPBarrette Outdoor Living v. Fortress Iron (Fed. Cir., October 17, 2025) 2024-1231This episode focuses on an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning a patent infringement case between Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Fortress Iron, LP, et al. (Defendants-Cross-Appellants). Barrette appealed a lower court's finding of non-infringement related to four of its patents, while Fortress cross-appealed the finding that the claims were not indefinite. The central issue on appeal revolved around the construction of terms like "boss" and "projection," which the district court had limited to integral and fastener-less structures, and the court ultimately affirmed the judgment of non-infringement because Barrette had disclaimed...
2025-10-2210 minCondensed IPCausam v. ecobee (Fed. Cir., October 15, 2025) 2024-1958This episode concerns the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in the case of Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Technologies ULC, decided on October 15, 2025. The core issue is an appeal from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which had ruled that several claims of Causam's U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 were unpatentable due to obviousness following an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by ecobee. The court addresses two main arguments raised by Causam: first, a constitutional challenge concerning the Board's failure to determine the patent's true owner, which the court rejects on...
2025-10-2112 minCondensed IPCausam v. ITC (Fed. Cir., October 15, 2025) 2023-1769This episode details an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal in the case of Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (ITC). The core issue originated from Causam's complaint to the ITC alleging that various companies, including Resideo Smart Homes Technology and ecobee Technologies ULC, were violating a section of the Tariff Act by importing and selling "smart" thermostats that infringed upon Causam's '268 patent related to "demand response" functionality. Although the Federal Circuit affirmed that Causam owned the patent for the purposes of establishing Article III standing, it ultimately...
2025-10-2110 minCondensed IPInland Diamond Products v Cherry Optical (Fed. Cir., October 15, 2025) 2024-1106This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated October 15, 2025, concerns the case of Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. The court addresses an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which had granted summary judgment that Inland’s asserted patent claims were invalid for obviousness based on the doctrine of issue preclusion following previous inter partes reviews (IPRs). The Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred by applying issue preclusion to facts found by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) under a lower st...
2025-10-1610 minCondensed IPBrita v. ITC (Fed. Cir., October 15, 2025) 2024-1098This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated October 15, 2025, concerns the patent infringement case of Brita LP v. International Trade Commission (ITC). The court is reviewing Brita's appeal of an ITC decision that found certain claims of Brita's U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141 invalid. Specifically, the patent relates to gravity flow filter media designed to remove contaminants, defined by a metric called the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirms the ITC's decision, ruling that the patent claims are invalid for lack of written description and lack of enablement because...
2025-10-1611 minCondensed IPUS Inventor v. USPTO (Fed. Cir., October 3, 2025) 2024-1396This episode is about a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, decided on October 3, 2025, concerning the case of US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The core issue of the appeal was whether the plaintiffs-appellants, US Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United, had standing to sue the PTO for denying their petition for rulemaking. This petition sought to limit the PTO’s discretionary authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, conc...
2025-10-0810 minCondensed IPRex Medical v. Intuitive Surgical (Fed. Cir., October 2, 2025) 2024-1072This episode concerns a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement case, Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The core issues addressed are damages, infringement, and patent validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,650, which relates to surgical stapling systems. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s rulings, specifically upholding the exclusion of Rex Medical's damages expert testimony due to a failure to apportion the value of a prior license agreement. Consequently, the court affirmed the Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) reducing the jury's $10 million da...
2025-10-0310 minCondensed IPFocus Products Group v Kartri Sales (Fed. Cir., September 30, 2025) 2023-1446This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, decided on September 30, 2025, concerning a complex intellectual property dispute between Focus Products Group International, LLC (and several related entities, collectively Appellees) and Kartri Sales Co., Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. (Appellants). The case centers on allegations that the Appellants infringed several utility patents, the HOOKLESS® trademark, the EZ ON trademark, and the trade dress associated with the Appellees' "hookless" shower curtains. The Federal Circuit partially affirmed the denial of motions to transfer venue and an "unclean hands" defense, but also reversed k...
2025-10-0111 minCondensed IPApex Bank v. CC Serve (Fed. Cir., September 25, 2025) 2023-2143This episode concerns a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court opinion, Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., decided on September 25, 2025, addresses an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board regarding the likelihood of confusion between the ASPIRE mark used by CC Serve and the proposed ASPIRE BANK marks of Apex Bank. The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case, specifically upholding the Board's finding of high similarity between the parties' services (DuPont factor two) but vacating the findings on third-party use and overall mark similarity (DuPont factors six and...
2025-09-2712 minCondensed IPFinesse Wireless v. AT&T Mobility (Fed. Cir., September 24, 2025) 2024-1039This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC and others. The court addresses an appeal by the defendants, AT&T and Nokia, against a district court's denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) regarding the noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,134 and 9,548,775, which relate to methods for mitigating intermodulation product interference in radios. The Federal Circuit ultimately found that the jury's verdict of infringement for both patents was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly pointing to contradictory...
2025-09-2510 minCondensed IPBayer v. Mylan (Fed. Cir., September 23, 2025) 2023-2434This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerns a patent infringement appeal case, Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. The appeal concerns the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) final written decision holding claims of Bayer's U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310, which describes methods using rivaroxaban and aspirin to reduce cardiovascular risk, unpatentable. The Court affirms-in-part and vacates-in-part the PTAB's decision, specifically upholding the unpatentability of claims 1–4, but vacating the judgment for claims 5–8 due to an incorrect claim construction of the term "first product." The Court also determined that the phrase "clinically proven effe...
2025-09-2410 minCondensed IPMagema Technology v. Phillips 66 (Fed. Cir., September 8, 2025) 2024-1342This opinion concerns an appeal from a district court ruling in a patent infringement case between Magēmā Technology LLC and Phillips 66. Magēmā Technology, which holds a patent for desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil (HMFO), sued Phillips 66 for infringement. The core issue on appeal concerns Phillips 66's improper and prejudicial argument at trial that ISO 8217 standards required actual testing data for fuel compliance, despite previously telling Magēmā that such testing was dangerous and estimates (using the Riazi Formula) would suffice. The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a new trial, finding that the jury's non-infringement verdict could have b...
2025-09-0912 minCondensed IPGoogle v. Sonos (Fed. Cir., August 28, 2025) 2024-1097 non-precedentialThis non-precedential decision concerns a patent dispute between Google LLC and Sonos, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a previous judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The appeal primarily addresses the validity and enforceability of several Sonos patents related to media playback systems, specifically the "Zone Scene" patents (U.S. Patent 10,469,966 and 10,848,885) and the "Direct Control" patent (U.S. Patent 10,779,033). The court reversed parts of the district court's decision, particularly regarding the invalidity and unenforceability of the Zone Scene patents due to lack of written description...
2025-09-0313 minCondensed IPHyatt v. Stewart (Fed. Cir., August 29, 2025) 2018-2390, -2391, -2392, 2019-1038, -1039, -1049, -1070, 2024-1992, -1993, -1994, -1995This judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details the ongoing litigation in the case of Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Coke Morgan Stewart, focusing on patent applications filed by Hyatt in the 1990s. The court addresses Hyatt's appeals concerning the affirmative defense of prosecution laches asserted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and Hyatt's cross-appeals regarding the district court's lack of Article III jurisdiction over certain claims. The court affirms the district court's judgment in favor of the PTO on the prosecution laches defense, finding that Hyatt engaged in unreasonable...
2025-09-0210 minCondensed IPIn re Brunetti (Fed. Cir., August 26, 2025) 2023-1539The opinion concerns an appeal by Erik Brunetti to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the refusal to register the word "FUCK" as a trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) had previously affirmed the examining attorney's decision, citing that the word failed to function as a trademark because it is a widely-used, all-purpose expression that consumers would not perceive as a source identifier for goods and services. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the Board's decision, arguing that while the Board's factual findings regarding the word's ubiquity were sound, it failed...
2025-08-2613 minCondensed IPGlobal Health Solutions v. Selner (Fed. Cir., August 26, 2025) 2023-2009This opinion concerns an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Global Health Solutions LLC v. Marc Selner and was decided on August 26, 2025. The core issue revolves around a derivation proceeding under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), which transitioned the U.S. patent system from "first-to-invent" to "first-inventor-to-file." Global Health Solutions (GHS) alleged that Selner, who filed his patent application first, derived his invention from GHS's founder, Bradley Burnam. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruled in Selner's favor, finding he had conceived the invention earlier and...
2025-08-2613 minCondensed IPLabcorp v. Qiagen (Fed. Cir., August 13, 2025) 2023-2350This opinion concerns an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement case. The plaintiffs-appellees, including Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, successfully sued defendants-appellants Qiagen Sciences, LLC, for infringing their U.S. Patent 10,017,810 and U.S. Patent 10,450,597, which relate to methods for preparing DNA samples. The jury initially awarded damages to the plaintiffs; however, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, finding insufficient evidence to support the infringement claims for both patents. The core of the appeal centers on the interpretation of specific claim terms within the patents, particularly...
2025-08-1413 minCondensed IPPowerBlock v. iFit (Fed. Cir., August 11, 2025) 2024-1177This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc. The core issue revolves around the patent eligibility of PowerBlock's U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771, which pertains to selectorized dumbbells with automated weight adjustment. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, which had found most claims of the patent to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were deemed "abstract ideas." The appellate court concluded that the patent claims, particularly claim 1, describe a sufficiently specific mechanical invention and are therefore patent eligible, r...
2025-08-1312 minCondensed IPMondis Technology v. LG Electronics (Fed. Cir., August 8, 2025) 2023-2117This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, specifically addressing a patent infringement case between Mondis Technology Ltd. (and related entities) and LG Electronics Inc. (and related entities). The core of the appeal revolves around U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180, titled “Display Unit with Communication Controller and Memory for Storing Identification Number for Identifying Display Unit.” The court's decision centers on whether the patent's claims, particularly claims 14 and 15, are invalid due to a lack of adequate written description in the original patent application. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, finding the pate...
2025-08-1210 minCondensed IPFMC v. Sharda USA (Fed. Cir., August 1, 2025) 2024-2335This opinion concerns an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning a patent infringement lawsuit between FMC Corporation and Sharda USA, LLC. Sharda USA is appealing a preliminary injunction that prevented it from selling its insecticide, arguing the lower court's interpretation of "composition" in FMC's patents was incorrect and thus, its ruling on patent invalidity was flawed. The appellate court vacates and remands the preliminary injunction, finding the district court erred in its claim construction by adding a "stability" requirement to "composition," which was explicitly removed from the asserted patents' specifications. This error...
2025-08-0713 minCondensed 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