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,...
Cooperation With a Restriction Requirement May Result in Disavowal of Claim Scope
FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. KARTRI SALES CO., INC. Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Summary: Repeatedly acquiescing...
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 Reuters Westlaw Article, Douglas Wentzel and Joshua Martineau Offer Overview of § 325(d) Petition Practice in Ex Parte Reexamination
Writing in Reuters Westlaw Today, attorneys Douglas Wentzel and Joshua Martineau offer an overview of § 325(d) petition practice, an important but often overlooked opportunity for patent owners to request that the USPTO discretionarily deny...
A Private Sale Is Not Sufficient for Public Disclosure Under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B)
SANHO CORP. V. KAIJET TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, INC.
Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An invention is not “publicly disclosed” under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(B) by the inventor’s private sale, even though a private sale may constitute an invalidating “public use” under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
