In Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a finding of design patent infringement due to an erroneous claim construction. The panel also reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), finding the accused products failed to perform a function required by the asserted utility patent.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upends Two Infringement Judgments

The USPTO’s recently published notice of proposed rulemaking (RIN 0651-AD89, Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0025) for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings seeks to curb multiple IPR challenges to the same patent. This aligns with the USPTO’s recent and decisive shift toward limiting accessibility of IPRs as a means to challenge patents outside of the district courts. While the USPTO claims to promote “fairness, efficiency, and predictability,” the practical impact would be a dramatic change in the risk calculus for accused infringers—especially those who never had their own opportunity to mount a proper challenge. Parties would be stuck with the results of someone…
Continue Reading USPTO’s Proposed “One and Done” IPR Rule: Rethinking Finality, Fairness, and Efficiency

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is rolling out a new Automated Search Pilot Program, offering applicants a first-of-its-kind opportunity to receive a pre-examination, AI-generated prior art search report. The program’s stated goals are to improve prosecution efficiency and the quality of patent examination by providing an Automated Search Results Notice (ASRN) before an examiner reviews the case. The ASRN is intended to provide an earlier communication regarding potential prior art issues and could bring about significant changes in how utility filings are prosecuted and strategized.
Continue Reading USPTO’s Automated Search Pilot Program: Early Prior Art Insights—Promises and Pitfalls for Patent Applicants

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the close of Federal Circuit review for this phase of a high-profile patent dispute and confirms the boundaries on IPR estoppel set by the Federal Circuit.
Continue Reading Final Word on IPR Estoppel: Rehearing Denied in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403.
Continue Reading Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars

In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless (Sept. 3, 2025), follows last year’s similar outcome in American Honda, GM, Nissan & Tesla v. Neo Wireless (Nov. 1, 2024).
Continue Reading PTAB Again Upholds the Heavily Litigated Neo Wireless Patent: What the Latest Decisions Mean for Automakers

Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity in favor of the patent owner, Super Lighting, finding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding CH’s relevant evidence pertaining to establishing the on-sale bar. As a result, the case was remanded for a new trial on validity of the patents.
Continue Reading Erroneous Exclusion of On-Sale Bar Evidence: Federal Circuit Revives Invalidity Challenge in Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Patent Dispute

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.

Background

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia. Janssen sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ’906 Patent), after Teva filed an Abbreviated New…
Continue Reading Claiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness

Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution.
Continue Reading The Push and Pull of Prosecution Estoppel: How Cancelled Claims Can Affect the Scope of Non-Amended Claims

In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, the Federal Circuit held that it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review a decision by the district court in the Southern District of New York not to modify an arbitral award of patent royalties. Though the Appellant, Accorda Therapeutics, Inc., presented a first ground to modify the arbitral award based in patent law, its presentation of a second and alternative ground based on contract law effectively undermined the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Denies Appellate Jurisdiction Based on Alternative Ground for Relief

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes various key issues in patent litigation, including the role of applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), standing, and obviousness.
Continue Reading Navigating Shockwave Medical: Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Standing, and Obviousness

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes lexicography in the context of claim construction.
Continue Reading Lexicography: Clear And Unequivocal

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.
Continue Reading Navigating Declaratory Judgment: Mitek’s Bid to Head Off USAA’s Patent Claims