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...
No Patent-Like Claims Under State Law
BearBox, LLC, Austin Storms, v. Lancium LLC, Michael T. McNamara, Raymond E. Cline, Jr. Before Chen, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Delaware....
Jury Instructions Must Describe All Relevant Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness
INLINE PLASTICS CORP V. LACERTA GROUP, LLC
Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Summary: Jury instructions must instruct the jury to consider all relevant objective indicia of non-obviousness.
A Terminal Disclaimer Is Not an Escape Hatch
IN RE CELLECT, LLC
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent.
Disclaimers May Not Be Used to Shapeshift Claims
CUPP COMPUTING AS v. TREND MICRO INC. [OPINION]
Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Patent Owners cannot attempt to narrow claims by disclaiming claim scope during an IPR proceeding.
Claim Cancellation Before Assignment Does Not Preclude Assignor Estoppel
Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Summary: Despite cancelling a claim prior to assignment, assignor estoppel still applied to bar invalidity defenses against a related claim because the assignor warranted the validity of the cancelled claim and the cancelled claim was not directed to subject matter materially broader than the related claim.
Effects of Proximity, Plurals, and Passive Voice for Claim Construction
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY
Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning of the claim.
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...
