This case[1] addresses declaratory judgments of non-infringement in relation to subject-matter jurisdiction and the district court’s refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
This Federal Circuit Opinion[1] analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures.
This case[1] involves an appeal from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Regeneron) efforts to prevent defendants from marketing biosimilar versions of EYLEA®, a drug used to treat eye diseases, by asserting patent infringement. In particular, the Federal Circuit addressed issues of
Mr. Storms, an individual with significant experience with Bitcoin mining, is the founder and sole employee of BearBox LLC. Mr. McNamara and Dr. Cline co-founded Lancium in November 2017 with the intention of co-locating flexible datacenters (e.g., Bitcoin miners) at
In a recent decision with important implications for artificial intelligence (AI) driven innovation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a patent for an AI-based medical tool.[1] The refusal was not because the invention was not new or
In Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation, the Federal Circuit addressed the boundaries a district court may impose on experts by deeming their testimony wrong as a matter of law.
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes claim construction arguments and requests for remittitur in the context of preserving issues for appeal.
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzed collateral estoppel and the extent to which the non-provisional document would benefit from the provisional application’s priority date, as it relates to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674 Patent”) are unpatentable as being obvious
In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held that estoppel stemming from inter
