Posts Tagged: "patent"

The UK Supreme Court today issued a landmark judgment on AI patentability that is likely to impact all software patents going forward. The decision in Emotional Perception v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks primarily held that the approach taken in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371; [2007] Bus LR 634; [2007] RPC 7 (Aerotel) should no longer be followed. Under Aerotel, courts and examiners consider a four-step test for assessing whether a claim is excluded from patent eligibility: 1) properly construe the claim, 2) Identify the actual/ alleged contribution, 3) Ask whether the contribution is excluded and 4) check if the contribution is technical.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation, affirming a jury verdict that found Ingevity liable for unlawful tying under federal antitrust laws. On appeal, the CAFC upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to deny Ingevity’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). As a result, the ruling included an award of more than $84 million in trebled damages to BASF Corporation (BASF). Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham.

During a Subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick confirmed to Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that he does not plan to implement his proposal to charge patent holders a percentage their patents’ value. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee held the hearing primarily to as Lutnick questions about issues surrounding broadband deployment funding. Coons, however, took the opportunity to ask Lutnick about a proposal first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July 2025 to charge a 1%-5% patent “tax” on the value of granted U.S. patents.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of AIA proceedings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a decision that affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a patent dispute between Maquet Cardiovascular LLC and Abiomed Inc. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that certain claims of one Maquet patent were not infringed by Abiomed’s Impella heart pumps, but revived Maquet’s infringement allegations on five other patents after finding the district court had improperly construed key claim terms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in part reversed a district court’s decision upholding GoTV Streaming, LLC’s patents as eligible, finding instead that they were invalid under Section 101. While the opinion, authored by Judge Taranto, also reversed the district court’s finding that the claims were invalid for indefiniteness, the panel found they were directed to an abstract idea and therefore vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no inducement and its denial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages, ordering the district court to enter judgment for Netflix, Inc., ending the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling that six patents owned by Innovaport LLC are invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit agreed that the patents, which are directed to systems and methods for providing in-store product location information, claimed an abstract idea without adding a sufficient inventive concept to make them patent-eligible.

Patent portfolios are frequently discussed in terms of size, technological breadth, or litigation potential. Those characteristics may be easy to measure, but they are not what determines whether a portfolio succeeds or fails. At their core, patent portfolios are business assets that must be managed deliberately and strategically. When they are not, they become cost centers that quietly consume resources without delivering meaningful competitive advantage.

he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a Western District of Texas decision granting Walmart, Inc. summary judgment that Q Technologies’ content sharing patents are invalid as patent ineligible. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie. Q Technologies owns U.S. Patent 9,635,108, 10,567,473 and 10,594,774, all of which are titled “Systems and Methods for Content Sharing Using Uniquely Generated Identifiers” and share a common specification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Tricam Industries, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. The decision held that Tricam’s ladders did not infringe Little Giant’s patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the district court correctly construed the key claim term “cavity.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AeroVironment, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by inventors Paul and David Arlton. The decision held that AeroVironment’s affirmative defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 covered all of its alleged infringing activities related to the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees.

On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively “Arbutus”) v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) de-designated two decisions having to do with real-parties-in interest from precedential status on Tuesday. The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, and we take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Johnson and I discuss the ongoing PTAB reset at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and suggest practical fixes for a better, reengineered PTAB. The majority of the conversation is devoted to concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, Johnson proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.