IRVINE, Calif., November 4, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to announce that partner Joshua Stowell has been recognized as an Orange County Visionary by the Los Angeles Times. According…

SAN DIEGO, October 31, 2024 – Knobbe Martens is pleased to share that partners Daniel Kamkar and Adam Powell were profiled in San Diego Business Journal’s (SDBJ) 2024 Leaders of…

In the Managing IP article “How Multi-Patent Suits Shape Law Firm Advice,” partner Joshua Stowell discussed the ways he helps clients manage the complexities of multi-patent lawsuits. Stowell, co-chair of…

Ari practices Intellectual Property law with a focus on advocating for clients in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation, both before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and Federal District Courts. Prior…

ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS
Before Dyk, Prost, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Because the PTAB’s MTA Pilot Program’s core purpose is to allow patent owners to address errors or deficiencies in motions to amend, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow reply briefing to correct such errors.

SOFTVIEW LLC v. APPLE INC.
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”).
Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new or amended claims in the PTO and does not apply to maintaining already issued claims.

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).

Purna is an associate at the firm’s New York office. Her practice focuses on patent litigation and prosecution in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, consumer products and medical device fields. Prior to…

IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc.

Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claim limitations requiring communications to be “encrypted” or to deliver “program code” were not subject to the printed matter doctrine.

Ryan Newell is an associate in the firm’s New York office. His practice includes IP strategy, patent portfolio management, patent prosecution, IP due diligence, and PTAB IPR proceedings. Ryan primarily…