The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent owners and patent challengers navigating the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials.  

On the heels of the recent reintroduction of the PERA and PREVAIL Acts of 2025, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress has introduced the Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies (“CET”) Act. The goal of the Leadership in CET Act is to “encourage innovation by, and the leadership of, the United States with respect to critical or emerging technologies” – specifically, artificial intelligence, semiconductor design, and quantum information science.

Your Package Could Not Be Delivered – District of Delaware Strikes Electronic Storage Room Claims as Patent Ineligible

Judge Choe-Groves of the United States Court of International Trade granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and ruled Plaintiff’s asserted electronic storage room patent invalid under § 101 of the Patent Act.

Luxer, a Delaware corporation and plaintiff in this patent infringement case, makes products related to controlling access to a package storage room. For example, the patent at issue describes systems and methods for controlling electronic locks of a storage room based on access rules and user credentials. The motivation behind these products is to offer a solution that allows a delivery carrier to drop off a package and a recipient to collect their package at any time and in a secure manner – no signature required. The Defendant, Package Concierge, Inc., offers very similar products.

Admissibility standards for patent damages experts has come under scrutiny. Previously, we highlighted the EcoFactor v. Google case regarding Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the admissibility of EcoFactor’s damages expert and the parties’ oral argument before the Court. On May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an 8-2 decision, ordering a new damages trial and overturned the $20 million verdict against Google. The Court found that the district court committed reversible error by allowing EcoFactor’s damages expert to testify at trial.

In a move that could reshape the U.S. patent landscape, Congress has reintroduced two major pieces of legislation: the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2025 and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL) Act. Both bills purport to restore clarity, strength and global competitiveness to the U.S. patent system—longstanding priorities for patent owners across industries.

Here we break down what each bill proposes and what it could mean for innovators if passed in its current form.

In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described in patents or printed publications? The Court answered with a resounding “no.” See Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE (“Op.”). While such systems may qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, the Court reaffirmed that “Congress excluded [them] in IPR proceedings.” Id. at 13.

The Supreme Court recently declined to review a Federal Circuit decision that could have significant implications for patent owners that rely on the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) program.  

The APEX program offers a streamlined way for utility patent owners to request removal of allegedly infringing product listings on Amazon.com, without filing a suit in district court. To initiate the process, the patent owner identifies up to 20 product listings that allegedly infringe one claim of a patent. Amazon then notifies the sellers, who may (1) agree to an independent infringement analysis by a neutral third party, (2) engage with the patent owner directly to resolve the dispute, (3) file a declaratory judgment action in U.S. district court, or (4) do nothing—at which point Amazon removes the product listings.

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on March 4, 2025, that serves as valuable guidance for product-by-process claims, particularly in the context of inherency in claim construction. In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, the Court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review final written decision in favor of the patent owner, Jadi Cell, LLC, upholding claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (the “ ’176 Patent”) directed to stem cells derived from umbilical cord subepithelial layer (“SL”) tissue with specific cell marker expressions (“Claimed Cells”).

A recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision related to hybrid quantum computing paves the way for more quantum computing-related patents, and potential litigation.  

Quantum computing is an important and evolving form of computing that has yet to be truly realized. Classical computing is, fundamentally, governed by the ability to store information in a bit, a binary unit represented by a one or a zero. In contrast, quantum computing is governed by a quantum bit, or qubit, which can represent an infinite, continuous number of possible states. For example, while 2 bits can store four combinations (00, 01, 10, or 11), 2 qubits can store all four combinations simultaneously. Hybrid quantum-classical computing (“HQC”) involves using both quantum computing and classical computing together in a system for one to address the shortcomings of the other. At its core, both types of computing are well known and rely on mathematical concepts making patent claims on a HQC highly susceptible to patent ineligibility attacks.