Gogo Launches 5G Air-To-Ground Network, Amidst Legal Headwinds
Gogo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOGO) announced on December 29, 2025, that its 5G air-to-ground (ATG) connectivity network is ready to serve customers in North America. After successful completion of in-flight testing...
Knobbe Martens Names New Chairs of Market-Leading Trademark and Brand Protection Group
IRVINE, Calif., October 22, 2025 – Knobbe Martens, one of the nation’s largest intellectual property law firms, is pleased to announce that Charlene Azema and Gregory Phillips have been named...
San Diego Business Journal Names Robert Hilton and Daniel Hughes Among “Leaders of Influence in Law”
SAN DIEGO, October 21, 2025 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that partners Robert Hilton and Daniel Hughes have been recognized as “Leaders of Influence in Law” by the...
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...
Dozens of Knobbe Martens Lawyers Featured in “Best Lawyers” 2026 Guide
IRVINE, Calif., August 21, 2025 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that dozens of the firm’s lawyers, representing a range of practice areas and offices across the country, have...
A Question for Everyone: Juries Must Determine Infringement on a Patent-By-Patent Basis
OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. APPLE INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: Patent plaintiffs have a right...
Patent Claims Applying Machine Learning Methods to New Environment Do Not Withstand § 101 Scrutiny
RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. Before Dyk, Prost, and Goldberg. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The Federal Circuit found that claims applying established...
Equitable Estoppel: Misleading Silence Not Enough Unless It Was Relied on and Caused Prejudice
FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The defense of equitable estoppel requires showing...
Where Method Claim Steps Are Connected by “And,” a Covered Method Must Perform Each Step
SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC V. SISVEL S.P.A. Before Moore, Schall, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board erred by finding method-claim steps connected by “and” to...
In Law360 Column, Jeremiah Helm and Sean Murray Examine Anti-Suit Injunctions and Standard Essential Patents
In the latest installment of their monthly column focused on recent noteworthy Federal Circuit decisions, partners Jeremiah Helm and Sean Murray examine the implications of the court’s ruling in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States)...
Daniel Kamkar and Adam Powell Named Among 2024 Leaders of Influence in Law by San Diego Business Journal
SAN DIEGO, October 31, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that partners Daniel Kamkar and Adam Powell were profiled in San Diego Business Journal’s (SDBJ) 2024 Leaders of...
Platinum Cannot Stand on Speculation
PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC., v. VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC.
Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement or will likely lead to a patentee claiming infringement.
Responding to Preliminary Guidance Is the Core Purpose of the MTA Pilot Program
ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS
Before Dyk, Prost, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Because the PTAB’s MTA Pilot Program’s core purpose is to allow patent owners to address errors or deficiencies in motions to amend, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow reply briefing to correct such errors.
Axios Quotes Mauricio Uribe on Changes to Zoom Terms of Service
Knobbe Martens partner Mauricio Uribe was quoted by Axios in the article “Terms-of-service land grab: Tech firms seek private data to train AI.” The article discusses the challenges tech companies face...
Marko Zoretic and Adam Copeland Examine the Applicability of the Federal Communications Act to Internet Streaming in Bloomberg Law Article
Knobbe Martens partner Marko Zoretic and associate Adam Copeland authored the article “Unlicensed Public Internet Streaming Is a Legal Work in Progress” for Bloomberg Law. Owners of television programs have...
Coming to Terms (of Service) with Your Organization’s Data | Firm Alert
Earlier this week, Zoom Video Communications, Qumu Corporation released updated terms of service on its Web site. (https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/). While a network service updating terms of service is not particularly unique...
The INFORM Consumers Act: What Online Retailers, Consumers, and Brands Need to Know | Firm Alert
On June 27, 2023, the INFORM Consumers Act (“the Act”) became effective, which requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information from high-volume, third-party sellers. What is the...
In IP & Tech Law Journal Article, Baraa Kahf and Savannah Torborg Discuss the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Complexities It Created, and Possible Resolutions
Partner Baraa Kahf and Associate Savannah Torborg authored the article “A Future in Flux: Why the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Created More Questions Than Answers,” published in Intellectual Property &...
Not So Obvious: Substantial Evidence Review of Factual Issue in an Obviousness Claim
ROKU, INC. v. UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS, INC.
Before Newman, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: When an appeal from the PTAB addresses only a factual issue, the substantial evidence standard of review applies.
The Choice Is Not Yours: Foreign Defendants Cannot Avoid Personal Jurisdiction by Post-suit, Unilateral Forum Designation
IN RE: STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS, LLC
Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: A defendant’s post-suit, unilateral consent to suit in another state cannot defeat personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
Failure to Vacate Adverse Standing Decision Upon Settlement Stops Subsequent Suits
UNILOC USA, INC. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Failure to vacate an adverse ruling regarding a lack of standing when settling a prior suit collaterally estopped the patentee in subsequent suits for lack of standing
