Five Knobbe Martens Partners Recognized in Benchmark Litigation “40 & Under” Guide
IRVINE, Calif., August 27, 2026 – Knobbe Martens is proud to share that five of the firm’s partners were named in the 2026 edition of Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under”...
Dozens of Knobbe Martens Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Best Lawyers in America Guides
IRVINE, Calif., August 20, 2026 – Leading intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that more than 40 firm lawyers have been featured in the 2027 editions...
PTAB May Revisit Issues Left Unresolved by Prior Appeal
INTELLECTUAL PIXELS LIMITED v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC Before Dyk, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board did not exceed the Federal Circuit’s...
Knobbe Martens Secures TRO and Preliminary Injunction for Pacific Rim Capital in Trade Secret Misappropriation Case
IRVINE, Calif., July 23, 2026 – A team from Knobbe Martens secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction (PI) on behalf of Pacific Rim Capital, Inc. (PRC) in...
Federal Circuit Review | June 2026
June Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) June Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) When ‘Any Patent’ Means No Patent: Federal Circuit Reverses Non-Specific Verdict In Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC...
Federal Circuit Review | May 2026
May Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) May Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) When “About” Runs A-Fowl of the Definiteness Requirement In Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc., v. Safe Foods Corp., Appeal...
Federal Circuit Review | April 2026
April Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) April Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Invisible But Invalidating: Undisclosed Functionality Still Triggers On-Sale Bar In Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, Appeal No. 24-1761,...
Federal Circuit Review | March 2026
March Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) March Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Software Claims Failed Alice Step One Where Purported Improvements Were Not Claimed In Trustees Of Columbia University v. Gen Digital...
PTAB Update | March 2026
PTAB to Rehear Ex Parte Baurin: Revisiting the Interplay of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustment After Cellect and Allergan Daniel M. Mittelstein & Michael L. Fuller The PTO...
Litigation Update | March 2026
The Credibility of Experts Is in the Province of the Jury Ari Feinstein & Kathryn M. McCarthy Neither the fact that a damages expert’s testimony could have been presented more clearly, nor...
USPTO Director to Consider U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Status When Instituting or Denying IPR and PGR Petitions
Key Takeaways Effective immediately, the USPTO will consider whether a patent challenger’s accused products or a patent owner’s products are manufactured in the United States as additional factors in the...
Corresponding Structure for a Means-Plus-Function Limitation Need Only Perform the Claimed Function, Not Other Unclaimed Functions
Richard Gramm, et al. v. Deere & Company Before Lourie, Reyna, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa Summary: Disclosure of an additional function...
Conflict of Interest Does Not Automatically Extinguish Attorney-Client Privilege
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. GEN DIGITAL INC.; QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Before Dyk, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the United...
Software Claims Failed Alice Step One Where Purported Improvements Were Not Claimed
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY v. GEN DIGITAL INC. Before Dyk, Prost, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: Software claims were directed...
Federal Circuit Review | February 2026
February Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) February Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Conceptual Similarity Does Not Go Arm in Arm with Substantial Similarity In Range Of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid...
Litigation Update | February 2026
Result-Oriented Claims and Section 101: Claiming the How Daniel Kiang & Brandon Cormier Result-oriented claims were found ineligible under 35 U.S.C ? 101 because the claims did not describe how...
Litigation Update | February 2026
Result-Oriented Claims and Section 101: Claiming the How Daniel Kiang & Brandon Cormier Result-oriented claims were found ineligible under 35 U.S.C ? 101 because the claims did not describe how...
Result-Oriented Claims and Section 101: Claiming the How
US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v GOOGLE LLC Before Moore, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: Result-oriented claims were...
Federal Circuit Review | January 2026
January Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) January Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Available Now: Federal Circuit Year in Review Report Knobbe Martens’ 2025 Federal Circuit Year in Review report, covering over...
Federal Circuit Review | October 2025
October Federal Circuit Newsletter (Japanese) October Federal Circuit Newsletter (Chinese) Standing or Guesswork? A Speculative Risk of Patent Cancellation is Insufficient for Standing In US Inventor, Inc. v. United...
Litigation Update | October 2025
Standing or Guesswork? A Speculative Risk of Patent Cancellation is Insufficient for Standing Jacob R. Rosenbaum & Jordan A. DeOrio US INVENTOR, INC. v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Before Lourie, Reyna,...
