Typos Cause Alkanes of Trouble
Ben K. Shiroma & Ryan M. Newell
A patentee could not argue that its provisional application provided written description support for its issued claims by arguing that the provisional contained an obvious typographical error.
Federal Circuit Sheds Light on “Skilled Searcher” Standard for IPR Estoppel
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded an IPR estoppel ruling because the district court relied on insufficient evidence that a “skilled searcher” could have reasonably discovered a reference and failed to account for hindsight concerns.
Preliminary Injunction Vacated Due to Claim Construction Errors
Inzer C. Ni & Michael E. Salamy
A preliminary injunction cannot stand when the likelihood-of-success analysis relies on erroneous claim constructions.
Prosecution Statements Can Create Substantial Questions of Noninfringement at the Preliminary Injunction Stage
A patentee’s statements during prosecution distinguishing prior art may create substantial questions of noninfringement sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction.
Patent Failed to Enable Dosage Claims
Jacob R. Rosenbaum & Henry P. FitzGerald
Patent claims were not enabled because the specification failed to provide sufficient guidance for determining “unit dosages” across the full scope of claimed compounds without undue experimentation.
What the ITC’s Zync v. BMW Decision Means for Section 337 Litigants
In a recent decision with implications for parties involved in intellectual property disputes before the International Trade Commission, an Administrative Law Judge terminated an ITC investigation ba
sed on a forum selection clause.
In Law360 Article, Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm Analyze Court Limitations on Patent Corrections
Sean Murray & Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D.
In the latest installment of their Law360 column on recent noteworthy Federal Circuit decisions, Knobbe Martens partners Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm explore how the court addressed the issue of patent corrections in Enanta Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
Jarom Kesler Explores Patent-Term Adjustment in the Post-Forest Era in IPWatchdog Article
In a recent article published in IPWatchdog, Knobbe Martens partner Jarom Kesler explores the impact of In re Forest, a 2025 Federal Circuit decision that addressed the question, “What value is a patent that expires before it issues?” Beyond analyzing the decision itself, Kesler breaks down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s June 2026 Patent Alert in response to the court’s decision, the role of patent-term adjustment (PTA) in patent prosecution, and how patent practitioners should approach PTA strategy in a post-Forest landscape.
PODCAST: The Biggest Patent Cases of 2026 So Far: The Federal Circuit Tackles Patentability
Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. & Carol Pitzel Cruz
Following their discussion on the Supreme Court’s consequential decision in Hikma v. Amarin, Knobbe Martens partners Jeremiah Helm and Carol Pitzel Cruz continue their exploration of the biggest patent cases in 2026 so far in this episode of Knobbe IP+. Turning their attention to the Federal Circuit, Jeremiah and Carol offer a deep dive into recent case decisions that illustrate the tension among three key pillars in patent litigation: written description, obviousness, and enablement. Covering several cases across different industries, Jeremiah and Carol share what patent practitioners and in-house counsel can take away from the court’s jurisprudence on Section 112 patentability.
PODCAST: Understanding AI and Patent Eligibility
Jarom D. Kesler & Bryan McWhorter
In this episode of Knobbe IP+, Knobbe Martens partners Jarom Kesler and Bryan McWhorter discuss the latest developments in AI and patent eligibility. Sharing insights for both fellow IP practitioners and inventors seeking to patent their latest innovations, Jarom and Bryan answer some of the most frequently asked questions surrounding the role of AI in the patent process: Can AI be listed as an inventor on a patent? What are the common pitfalls to avoid in the AI patenting process?