The USPTO’s Evolving Approach to Patent Eligibility: Insights from Director Squires’ AIPLA Address
On October 31, 2025, Director Squires spoke to the American Intellectual Property Law Association and provided a forceful statement on his view for the direction of patent law. Of particular...
Expert Testimony Fails to Support Jury’s Infringement Verdict
FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC Before Moore, Linn, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: Unclear and internally inconsistent...
Similar Does Not Mean Identical
APEX BANK v. CC SERVE CORP. Before: Hughes, Moore, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). Summary: The Board erred by excluding evidence of marks...
Cooperation With a Restriction Requirement May Result in Disavowal of Claim Scope
FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. KARTRI SALES CO., INC. Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Summary: Repeatedly acquiescing...
$10 Million to $1: Exclusion of Damages Expert Results in Nominal Damages for Surgical Stapler Patent Infringement
REX MEDICAL, L.P. v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. Before Dyk, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Damages testimony was excluded for failing...
Standing or Guesswork? A Speculative Risk of Patent Cancellation is Insufficient for Standing
US INVENTOR, INC. v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Before Lourie, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Summary: Appellants who...
The Consequences of Converting Voluntary Dismissals
FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC v. REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION Before Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: The district court’s...
Bait, Switch, and Retrial: Federal Circuit Rebukes Trial Arguments That Reneged on Prior Representations
MAGĒMĀ TECHNOLOGY LLC v. PHILLIPS 66 Before Moore, Stoll, and Bumb. Appeal from the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Summary: A district court abused its discretion by...
Words Matter: “Identical” Does Not Mean “Identical to a Portion Of”
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS v. QIAGEN SCIENCES LLC Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The Federal Circuit reversed...
Derivation ≠ Interference: First to File Keeps Rights if Conception Was Independent
GLOBAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC v. SELNER Before Stoll, Stark, and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection...
Not Clear Enough: The TTAB’s Standard for the Registrability of All-Purpose Word Marks Lacked Clarity
IN RE: ERIK BRUNETTI Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and...
Deleted Specification Portions Undermine Claim Construction
FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC Before Moore, Chen, and Barnett. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Summary: The district court erred by construing a claim term based on...
Can § 101 Carry the Weight?
POWERBLOCK HOLDING, INC. v. IFIT, INC. Before Taranto, Stoll, and District Judge Scarsi. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Summary: Under step one of the...
Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction Over a Patent Royalty Dispute
ACORDA THERAPEUTICS, INC. V. ALKERMES PLC Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The Federal Circuit held...
Federal Circuit Holds District Court Abused Its Discretion by Excluding an Authenticating Witness
JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, CO. v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. Before Dyk, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas....
No Shenanigans: IPRs and Interference Estoppel
IGT v. ZYNGA INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Summary: Interference estoppel does not apply when the interference was terminated due...
Sunkist Squeezes Out a Win and Kisses Kist Goodbye!
SUNKIST GROWERS, INC. v. INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. Before Prost, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The TTAB incorrectly found that similar trademarks created distinct commercial...
An Examiner’s Allowance Does Not Create an “Especially Weighty” Presumption of Written-Description Support
MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., HITACHI MAXELL, LTD., NKA MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD., MAXELL, LTD. v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. Before Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States...
Applicant Admitted Prior Art Can (Sometimes) Show Obviousness
SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. Summary:...
Not So Cozy: Prosecution History Disclaimer for Design Patents
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...
Cancellation of a Closely Related Claim During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel
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. Summary: The Federal Circuit...
