Posts Tagged: "patent"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision in Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., affirming a district court’s exclusion of a patent owner’s damages expert and reduction of a $10 million jury award to nominal damages of $1. The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Stoll and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Prost, held that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware properly considered the requirements for expert testimony based on comparable license agreements to establish reasonable royalty damages.

This Monday, Irvine, CA-based memory technology developer Netlist filed a complaint  with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging rampant infringement of its patent rights by dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices manufactured by Samsung, including those used in Google products. The complaint is Netlist’s latest action against Samsung following a breached joint development agreement and two jury verdicts entered in U.S. district court awarding Netlist more than $420 million for Samsung’s infringing memory modules.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we welcome Marlene Valderrama, who is Principal Intellectual Property Manager & Technology Scout for Halliburton. During our conversation, Marlene shares insights from her role as an innovation scout, the challenges of encouraging innovators inside Halliburton to recognize the importance and magnitude of their novel contributions, and the exciting advancements in drilling technology facilitated by AI. The conversation delves into best practices for AI implementation and the importance of continuous training for IP and innovation management. Additionally, Marlene opens up about her personal journey, her unexpected career path from drilling engineer to IP advocate, her passion for giving back through long-distance biking to raise money for multiple sclerosis research, and much more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding for a new trial involving patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims related to “hookless” shower curtains. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Chen, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Clevenger joining, held that while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York properly denied Kartri Sales Co., Inc.’s and Marquis Mills, International, Inc.’s venue transfer motion and unclean hands defense, it erred in several of its infringement findings and damages awards.

When functioning properly, intellectual property (IP) rights enable ideas to become legally recognized assets, which can then be collateralized or licensed to attract financing, thereby fueling investment, job creation and economic expansion. During the 2025 IPWatchdog Women’s IP Forum, I had the privilege of joining a distinguished panel to explore in depth how IP functions as an engine of economic growth in the United States and globally. My remarks focused on the central role of predictable IP rights in transforming innovation into economic output.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Squires affirming decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Rideshare’s patent claims to systems and methods of vehicle identification were obvious over prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision also reversed the PTAB’s partial grant of Rideshare’s motions to amend, finding the substitute claims’ subject matter did not provide a technological solution rendering the claims patent-eligible at Step Two of the Alice/Mayo patent eligibility framework.

If you look closely enough, you’ll find patent numbers on most of the physical products around you. Much like their copyright and trademark cousins, these designations are far from cosmetic. Instead, they serve a statutory requirement to provide public notice about your protected intellectual property. In the case of patent marking, not only does it reduce the risk of infringement because you are informing potential infringers of the patent’s existence, but the notice also marks the point in time to which you can go back for collecting on awarded damages.

Timing is everything in the world of American innovation. On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that “cancellation” of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules.

This is a response to Robert Grantham’s recent post titled “Patents Subjected to IPRs are the Perfect Vehicle to Assess the USPTO’s Patent Quality Problem.” This post claims to challenge my recent article titled “Fallacy Dispelled: Invalidation Rates of Adjudicated Patents Convey Nothing About Quality of All Issued Patents.” However, the post does not challenge my article, but instead falsely knocks down a strawman the post invented by mischaracterizing my article.

John Squires was officially sworn in as the 60th U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director on Tuesday, September 23, and today issued the first patents of his term, both in technology sectors that often face increased scrutiny about patent eligibility during patent prosecution and in the courts. The two issued patents were directed to distributed ledger/crypto and medical diagnostics technologies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday reversing a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and vacating a damages award in favor of Finesse Wireless LLC. The CAFC said there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts finding AT&T Mobility and Nokia (AT&T) infringed two of Finesse’s radio signal interference mitigation patents.

When Duck Hunt landed in living rooms in 1984, it brought with it one of gaming’s most iconic peripherals: the NES Zapper. But the magic behind aiming a plastic gun at a screen and hitting an 8-bit duck was more than a gimmick. It was the product of pioneering technology—the likes of which have led to a stream of patents for each new generation of game hardware.

In a spirited discussion at our annual Women’s IP Forum, attendees were treated to an insightful fireside-style chat conversation with the Honorable Judge Pauline Newman, a trailblazer for women in law and a luminary in the field of intellectual property. Judge Newman spoke with Renee C. Quinn, Chief Operating Officer of IPWatchdog, Inc. Her career has been marked by a commitment to innovation and the advancement of strong intellectual property rights, shaping the very foundation of modern patent law. But did you know that Judge Newman was until a few years ago an active and licensed pilot? Did you know that she tutored singer/ songwriter legend Joan Baez in chemistry when Baez was in high school? While so much of Judge Newman’s life has been well documented, there are so many layers to her extraordinary life.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. affirming-in-part a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating Bayer’s patent claims for methods of reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in patients. The Federal Circuit nixed Bayer’s arguments that the claim term “clinically proven effective” requires proof of clinical efficacy, although the appellate court did agree that the PTAB erred in construing a different claim term, vacating and remanding the Board’s decision with respect to some of Bayer’s claims.

The ongoing policy debate about pharmaceutical and biologic patents has been coopted by those who don’t like patents—including those who have a financial incentive not to like patents. These paid mercenaries concoct and then disseminate fraudulent “reports”, which have become the lifeblood for patent critics. Even when the inaccuracies and lies are clearly identified, the cacophony of patent haters drowns out the truth thanks to a complicit, ideologically aligned popular press that continues to cite and rely on fabricated “findings” that couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny of your average fifth grader.