PTAB Update | April 2026
USPTO Introduces Pre-Order Papers for Patent Owners in Ex Parte Reexaminations Jarom D. Kesler & Joshua M. Martineau With the decline of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and the significant...
Standing Still? Only if Injury-In-Fact Is Tied to the Claims at Issue
IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. Before Moore, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: An appellant seeking to establish Article III standing based on...
Litigation Update | July 2025
Combination Dosing Regimen Not Obvious Despite Overlapping Prior-Art Ranges Justin J. Gillett & Alex Martin del Campo JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto....
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...
Can’t Stop a Bull: Limits of Claim Preclusion
INGURAN, LLC, DBA STGENETICS v. ABS GLOBAL, INC., GENUS PLC
Before Lourie, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Summary: Claim preclusion does not bar an induced infringement claim that did not exist at the time of the earlier action.
Evidence of Actual Physician Practice is Relevant in Determination of Direct Infringement
GENENTECH, INC. V. SANDOZ INC. Before Newman, Lourie, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The district court did not clearly err...
INVENTORS, NOT AI-VENTORS: The Patent Act Requires an “Inventor” to Be a Natural Person
THALER V. VIDAL
Before Moore, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Summary: Under the Patent Act , an “inventor” must be a natural person. Therefore, an AI system cannot be an inventor.
Claims Survive IPR Challenge Under Narrow Construction Because It Was The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Despite applying the standard of broadest reasonable construction, a claim term’s narrowed construction to refer to a specific detection method was proper in view of its exclusive use in the written description as referring to the specific method as well as its foundational relationship to the claims.
Knobbe Martens Welcomes New Class of Associates
Knobbe Martens announces its continued commitment to providing the highest quality legal services with the addition of 30 new Associates firmwide. “Our new associates have a wide range of talents...
