Crashing and Burning: What Companies Can Learn From the Apple TV+ Series WeCrashed - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance in the power of Patent-Office rulemaking and enforcement, and the influence it has on patent owners and challengers alike....more
In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit partially signed off on Apple’s win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a number of patents owned by Corephotonics relating to dual-aperture...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more
APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY - Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning...more
On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
The Federal Circuit has provided additional guidance about an appellant’s standing to appeal IPR decisions after settling the related litigations and entering into patent license agreements. In its second decision between...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more
On November 10, in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, for the second time, and in a 2-1 decision by a different panel, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal final decisions in inter partes review...more
APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal from its loss as petitioner in a couple of inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patent owner Qualcomm. Background - Qualcomm sued...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR)...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1922, -1923, -1925, -1926 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2020) - This week’s case of the week focuses, not on a patent issue, but on a procedural issue common...more
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference....more
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Encompasses All Embodiments in the Absence of Support Specifically Excluding an Embodiment - In Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1290, the Federal Circuit...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: When resolving an obviousness challenge, the PTAB cannot invoke “ordinary creativity” of a skilled...more
In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more
Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more
Addressing the issue of evidence required for a sustainable obviousness determination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of obviousness of the challenged...more
In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more
Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems...more
Computerized Restaurant Ordering Menu Patents Found to Be Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in three...more