Photo of Connor Villar

Connor Villar

Subscribe to Connor Villar's Posts

Connor Villar is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Patents Group.

Connor earned his J.D. from Tulane University Law school, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.Eng. from SUNY Maritime College, Cum Laude. While at law school, Connor served as a Judicial Extern to Judge James L. Dennis of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as a Managing Editor of the Tulane Law Review, and successfully sat for the United States Patent and Trademark Registration Exam.

Contact:Read more about Connor Villar

In a decision that is quickly gaining attention, the Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding both of Plaintiff’s experts and subsequently granting Defendants’ judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no infringement. Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies.

The ruling is notable given the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Google v. EcoFactor, which reinforced district court’s gatekeeping authority over expert testimony. In Barry, however, the Court seems to be shifting greater responsibility back to the jury to assess expert credibility and weight.

On August 11, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Utah’s ruling that all but one of the claims in PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc., v. iFit, Inc. (“Appellate Op.”). In September 2023, the District Court found all but claim 19 failed the Alice test as they did not “add significantly more than the abstract idea of the end-result of an automated sectorized dumbbell. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., 2023 WL 6377781, at *7 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2023) (“Trial Op.”). The claims at issue are generally directed to an adjustable dumbbell system that uses an electric motor to couple additional weights to the dumbbell—allowing the user to increase or decrease the weight automatically. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the matter de novo.

In a pivotal ruling for patent damages and standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated a $300 million award against Apple in a long-standing dispute with Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. See Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc. (“Op.”). The Federal Circuit sided with Apple on multiple fronts—vacating the damages and infringement findings, reversing § 101 findings on the claims of one of Optis’s patents, and reversing a finding that another patent did not invoke 35 USC § 112 ¶6 (The patent at issue was issued pre-AIA so §112(f) is referred to as 112 ¶ 6 as in the original statute language). The Court also affirmed claim construction of certain terms and held the lower court abused its discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 by admitting certain damages evidence and testimony from Optis.

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 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”).

The legal battle between Harvard and 10x Genomics, and Vizgen Inc. came to a halt the other day, February 6, 2025, when the parties notified Judge Matthew F. Kennelly they had reached a settlement. This comes after three days of intense trial in the District of Delaware. Harvard and 10x filed suit against Vizgen back in April of 2022 alleging it was infringing on a series of Harvard’s patents dedicated to gene-mapping technologies. Vizgen counter-claimed that Harvard breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violated the warranties it made in the Vizgen licensing agreement, and negligently misrepresented those warranties to induce Vizgen to enter the agreement. Vizgen also claimed that 10x tortiously interfered with its business relationships, the parties violated antitrust statutes, and sough a declaratory judgment declaring the patents invalid. The original licensing deal was with ReadCoor, a company acquired by 10x that was co-founded by Harvard Medical School professor and named inventor on the patents-in-suit, George Church.