Knobbe Martens Recognized by Am Law, Law360 for $634 Million Patent Infringement Win for Masimo
A team from Knobbe Martens, along with Sullivan and Cromwell, was honored as lead runner up in Am Law’s “Litigator of the Week” contest for securing a successful verdict on...
Knobbe Martens Guides Masimo to $634M Win Against Apple in Patent Infringement Case
IRVINE, Calif., November 17, 2025 – A team from Knobbe Martens led medical device pioneer Masimo (NASDAQ: MASI) to a victory over Apple in a dispute involving Masimo’s patented heart...
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,...
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...
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...
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...
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....
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...
A Patent Does Not Guarantee the Patent Owner Will Be First to Market
INCYTE CORPORATION V. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. Before Moore, Prost and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: A district court erred...
No Takebacks: The High Bar for Departing From Patent Lexicography
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware Summary: Once the high threshold for lexicography is...
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...
A Published Patent Application Is IPR Prior Art as of Its Filing Date
LYNK LABS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing...
Daniel Hughes and Adam Powell Discuss Complex Intersection of Generative AI and Trade Secrets in Daily Journal Article
In the Daily Journal article “How Generative AI is Impacting Trade Secret Protection,” partners Daniel Hughes and Adam Powell explore the ways in which generative AI poses new challenges and...
Daily Journal Quotes Daniel Hughes on Potential Federal Circuit Ruling on AI Copyright Infringement Standard
Partner Daniel Hughes was quoted in the Daily Journal story, “9th Circuit’s Reply to AI Identicality Question Might Alter Copyright Playing Field”. The article discusses an appeal by a federal...
Knobbe Martens, Attorneys Ranked Highly in Patexia 2024 PTAB Intelligence Report
IRVINE, Calif., September 24, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that the firm and over a dozen of its attorneys have been recognized as top performers in the...
A Certification Mark May Be Famous for Any Reason and May Connote More Than the Product’s Place of Origin
BUREAU NATIONAL INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU COGNAC v. COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT Before Lourie, Clevenger and Hughes. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fame and likelihood of confusion analyses...
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose Under § 101
MOBILE ACUITY LTD. v. BLIPPAR LTD. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: Patent claims that merely recite...
In Recorder Article, Adam Powell and Daniel Hughes Discuss How Companies Can Prepare for FTC’s Noncompete Rule
In the article “Protecting Company Secrets After the FTC’s Noncompete Rule,” published in The Recorder, partners Adam Powell and Daniel Hughes offer practical takeaways for companies who are seeking to...
Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
Before Prost, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Summary: District court erred by adding unclaimed limitations to the claims in analyzing obviousness.
Janssen sued Teva for infringement of a patent claiming a dosing regimen for administering paliperidone to treat schizophrenia. Specifically, the patent claimed a long-acting dosing regimen, comprising a series of three intramuscular injections. Teva stipulated to infringement but challenged validity. After a bench trial, the district court found, among other things, that Teva had not proven that the claims were invalid as obvious.
Federal Circuit Instructs PTAB How to Apply Public Accessibility Standard
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Copyright notices in product manuals, which prohibited their reproduction and transfer, did not remove the manuals from the prior art.
“Magic Words” Unnecessary in Identifying Field of Endeavor for Analogous Art
NETFLIX, INC. v. DivX, LLC
Before Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Petitioner was not required to explicitly identify secondary reference’s “field of endeavor” using specific language when briefing sufficiently communicates the field of endeavor.
