Sophia Space and Caltech Obtain Orbital Data Center Patent
Key Takeaways: Sophia Space and Caltech recently announced that they have received a patent related to modular, passively-cooled, computing and data storage units which can be assembled into a large-scale...
Wolfspeed Sues Navitas for Patent Infringement Over GaN and SiC Technologies
Key Takeaways: With demand for high-efficiency power devices continuing to grow, companies are placing greater emphasis on maintaining their competitive advantage by protecting their intellectual property. Companies commercializing gallium nitride...
USPTO, ITC Veteran Michael Forman Joins Knobbe Martens
Mr. Forman brings over 15 years of combined experience at key government agencies WASHINGTON, D.C., January 26, 2026 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to announce that former U.S. Patent &...
Patent Scorecard – Ranking Patent Portfolios in the Aerospace Industry
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) recently released its 2025 “Patent Scorecard” where it analyzes and ranks companies with large patent portfolios in various industries, including aerospace. The...
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over IPRs Challenging Expired Patents
APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning...
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...
Adam Powell Named Among the Top Lawyers in California Under 40 by Daily Journal
SAN DIEGO, September 27, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that partner Adam Powell has been named among Daily Journal’s “Top 40 Under 40”. Mr. Powell, who serves...
Are Literal Infringement and the Doctrine of Equivalents the Same Issue?
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC
Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Summary: Literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are treated as the same issue for issue preclusion.
Logan Young Named Among “Next Gen in Law” by Puget Sound Business Journal
SEATTLE, Wash., May 28, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to announce that associate Logan Young has been recognized by Puget Sound Business Journal’s “Next Gen in Law”. “Next Gen...
Ambiguous Phrase in a Patent Assignment Precludes Summary Judgment Regarding Standing
Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Corporation
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Taranto. Appeal from the Central District of California.
Summary: Applying California law, the phrase “entirely on my own time” in an employment agreement was found ambiguous and therefore precluded summary judgment of no standing to sue for patent infringement.
Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory?
MAXELL, LTD., V. AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Summary: Two claim limitations are not contradictory if they can be satisfied simultaneously.
USPTO Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program
USPTO Announces New, Limited-Time Program for Expedited Semiconductor Patent Applications On December 1, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) began accepting petitions for the Semiconductor Technology Pilot...
IPR Decision Based on a Barely Mentioned Typo Violated the APA Notice Requirement
APPLE INC. v. COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
Before Stoll, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR final written decision based on a party’s brief mention of an error in an expert declaration did not satisfy the notice requirements of the APA, where neither party suggested the error was material or dispositive.
Knobbe Martens Obtains Favorable Ruling for Japanese Materials and Chemical Manufacturer in Post Grant Review Proceeding
Patent and Trial Appeals Board invalidates 15 claims in patent held by Fujifilm San Diego, Calif., June 23, 2023 – A Knobbe Martens team led by Nathanael Luman, Ph.D. secured...
PTAB Need Not Consider Mountain of Evidence Submitted Without a Map
PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. V. GOOGLE LLC
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: PTAB did not err in declining to consider evidence in IPR that was incorporated by reference without adequate explanation.
Potential Claim Construction Error Is Harmless When Not Relied Upon by the Board
BOT M8 LLC v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC
Before Prost, Reyna, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A party challenging the Board’s decision by alleging claim construction errors must demonstrate the harmfulness of the alleged errors for the Board’s decision to be reversed.
Exhibit Combustion: Disavowing Contradictory Statements Contained in Complaint Exhibits
HEALTHIER CHOICES MANAGEMENT CORP. V. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
Before Taranto, Stoll, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Summary: A plaintiff can sufficiently disavow statements contained in attachments to a complaint by making specific, targeted contentions in the complaint to contradict such statements.
What You “Said” in Your Claims May Be Limiting
SALAZAR V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Before Stoll, Schall, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Summary: While the indefinite article “a” means “one or more” in open ended claims, use of the term “said” indicates that the portion of the claim limitation is a reference back to the previously claimed term, and thus may require a single claim element to be capable of performing all the recited functionality.
How Far Can the Music Go: The Limited Reach of the Trademark Tacking Doctrine
BERTINI v. APPLE INC.
Before Moore, Taranto and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Tacking a mark for one good or service does not grant priority for every other good or service in the trademark application.
Who Bears the Burden of Proof for IPR Estoppel?
IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORP.
Before Lourie, Clevenger, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Summary: The patentee has the burden of proving that invalidity grounds not raised in a petition for inter partes review could reasonably have been raised.
A “Known Technique” for Showing a Motivation to Combine References
INTEL CORP. V. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG
Before Newman, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Under the “known-techniques” rationale, a motivation to combine two prior art references exists when the references address the same problem and one of the references provides a known technique that would suitably address that problem.
