Posts Tagged: "patents"

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.”

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.

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.

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 mythology surrounding the act of invention tends to concentrate on the breakthrough moment. There is a flash of insight, a sketch is made on a cocktail napkin, the prototype is assembled in a garage to prove the brilliance of the concept. Unfortunately, commercial markets are considerably less romantic. They do not reward ideas merely because they are clever, patentable or even technically superior. They reward products that work, solve a problem customers recognize, can be manufactured at an economically sustainable price and generate an acceptable return for whoever assumes the risk of bringing them to market.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that held claims 1 through 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109 unpatentable as obvious. The ruling followed a second final written decision the Board issued after the case was remanded from an earlier Federal Circuit appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from an ex parte reexamination that found claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,039,483 anticipated and therefore unpatentable.

In any patent dispute, the strength of the patent still matters. But increasingly, it is not the only thing that matters—or even, in some cases, the thing that matters most. That means where a patent dispute takes place cannot be a tactical afterthought or viewed as a choice of federal district courts in the United States alone. This is true today more than ever because despite patents ostensibly being property—at least according to the Patent Act—which tribunal and which judges make the ultimate decisions affecting the patent often matter most of all because patents and patent enforcement have become driven by ideology and the type of fervor normally reserved highly emotionally charged discussions, like religion and politics.

On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the dismissal  of Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels’ patent infringement suit against HighLevel Inc., holding the disputed website creation patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the CAFC found that the district court erred by treating a single claim as representative of all asserted claims without adequately addressing ClickFunnels’ argument that the two dependent claims at issue contained a distinct limitation,  the panel ultimately concluded that the error was harmless

Patent monetization is often discussed as if the hard part begins when a patent owner makes the decision to license, sell, finance, or enforce its patent assets. That is a mistake and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difficulties and complexities of patent monetization. By the time a patent owner is sitting across the table from a potential licensee, buyer, lender, litigation funder, or accused infringer, much of the outcome has already been fully determined. The real work begins years earlier in preparation for monetization.

Recent developments in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC (Reexamination Control 90/019,130; Patent 10,947,555 B2) clarify obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in the context of patent families with multiple continuations and varying patent term adjustments (PTA)…. In Corteva, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) distinguished Cellect and extended Allergan by holding that a child patent (here, the ’555 patent) is not unpatentable for ODP if it does not expire later than the original patent in the family, including any PTA awarded to the original patent. Below is a figure from Corteva.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of a pro se inventor’s lawsuit and denial of his motion for summary judgment. Stanley Sansone filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511 on January 23, 2019, seeking a patent for a wearable thermal device, but a patent examiner rejected all claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, after which Sansone sought continued examination.

When I sat down with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu for this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I expected a serious conversation about the condition of the U.S. patent system. Instead of rehashing everything that has gone wrong with the U.S. patent system from the perspective of an innovator over the last two decades, what took place was a deep and revealing conversation about whether the legal architecture that once made the United States the world’s innovation leader is still fit for purpose in an economy increasingly defined by software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other intangible assets.