Posts in Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Cartessa Aesthetics LLC violated Section 337 via infringement of Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was about to expire. The CAFC also vacated the underlying ITC determination.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice proposing to amend the rules of practice to require that third-party requests for ex parte reexamination of a patent must include a statement identifying all real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) to the proceeding. According to the proposed rule, statements identifying RPIs would be kept confidential upon request and “would provide the Office with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions” as well as “enhance the Office’s ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming a district court’s dissolution of a preliminary injunction (PI) and denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Schedule A design patent dispute over foldable fans. Circuit Judge Hughes wrote for the majority, joined by Circuit Judge Prost, while Circuit Judge Stoll dissented from the portion of the opinion addressing the merits of the design patent analysis.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a decision for a patent owner against Apple, concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made several errors in finding the claims of the speech recognition patent at issue were not shown to be unpatentable. Zentian Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789, which is titled “Speech recognition circuit and method.” Apple petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of multiple claims of the patent, arguing in relevant part that “claim 1 was obvious over prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”) or the combination of Smyth and U.S. Patent No. 6,832,194 (“Mozer”) and that claim 29 was obvious over Smyth, Mozer, and several other references.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, Inc., vacating a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of LifeCore Fitness, doing business as Assault Fitness. The court found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California relied on an overly restrictive claim construction, vacating and remanding the decision for further proceedings.

Recent amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 did not invent the trial judge’s gatekeeping obligation, nor did they transform economic analysis. They did, however, sharpen the focus on the burden of establishing admissibility and whether an expert has reliably applied a valid methodology to the facts. Combined with the Federal Circuit’s increasingly demanding review of patent damages opinions, the practical message is unmistakable: the economic case must be engineered from the beginning, or you will surely suffer the consequences only after it is too late.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating claims of Woodway’s treadmill patent after rejecting the patentee’s central argument that the Board had improperly construed the claim term ‘running surface.’

Enanta Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer has been widely characterized as a case that turns on the acceptance or rejection of an alleged typographical error in a provisional patent application. That characterization is inaccurate. The alleged typographical error is a distraction that obscures the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit analyzed the case under the wrong legal framework. Properly understood, Enanta is not about a typo at all; rather, the dispositive question is whether the inventors possessed the invention prior to the public disclosure of the allegedly infringing compound.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions today affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found claims of three patents owned by Slingshot Printing LLC unpatentable as obvious. The rulings, issued in Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., followed a set of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. brought against Slingshot’s printhead patents.

When the world’s best golfers descend on Royal Birkdale in Southport, England, for the 154th Open Championship, they arrive at golf’s oldest major — the tournament that has defined the sport since 1860. Played on the windswept links where the game forged its traditions, The Open has always celebrated history. But this year, it also marks the arrival of something entirely new.

Yesterday, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published a report on the global patent landscape for generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies showing that newly published patent families in the sector increased more during 2024 and 2025 combined than the preceding decade. While the United States has enjoyed greater annual growth rates in published patent families in the sector, six of the top 10 patenting entities are located in China, underscoring the dominant position that country is securing in an incredibly valuable and critical sector of emerging technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd., affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that upheld the validity of several claims covering a biometric access control system. ASSA ABLOY AB and its affiliates, including HID Global Corp., ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc., and Master Lock Company LLC, argued the Board misconstrued a key claim term and ignored one of its unpatentability theories, but the CAFC found neither argument persuasive.

An inventor pastes an unfiled disclosure into a chatbot to clean up the wording. An associate runs a draft specification through an AI tool to pressure-test claim support. A client forwards the analysis an AI gave them about their own case. All routine now, and each has produced a warning that AI quietly destroys patent rights: the prompt becomes prior art, novelty is lost, inventorship is corrupted, the application turns suspect. Some of those warnings are real. Most misidentify what went wrong.

The full U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday, titled “From Genes to Machines: the Patent Eligibility Debate,” during which witnesses testified about the pros and cons of reforming U.S. patent eligibility law, with human genome patentability featuring as a key sticking point. While the hearing became heated at times—mostly over the peripheral topic of drug pricing—witnesses and Committee members ultimately seemed willing to work together on language that might move the bill forward.