Photo of Erik Milch

Erik Milch

Subscribe to Erik Milch's Posts

Erik Milch is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of the Intellectual Property, Patent Law and Trials group.

Erik brings more than 20 years of experience litigating in key jurisdictions across the U.S., as well as before the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As a first-chair trial lawyer, Erik litigates complex matters involving medical devices, life sciences instrumentation, pharmaceuticals, electrical and computer technology, and consumer products. He regularly counsels clients in a range of industries in connection with patent procurement, development of patent portfolios, patent licensing, valuation of patent portfolios in business transactions and transactional diligence.

Erik has extensive experience in all aspects of patent litigation from pre-filing through appeal, including enforcement of patents against competitors and defense of patent infringement allegations. His technical background includes microfluidics, lab automation, optical imaging instruments, wound closure, surgical instrumentation, orthopedics, autoinjectors, tissue resection and sealing, pharmaceuticals, haptic feedback systems, computer software, consumer products, fluid mechanics applications, automotive engines and mechanical and electrical components, aerospace propulsion and control systems, weapons systems, and telecommunications.

Erik has been consistently recognized in Chambers USA and IAM Patent 1000 for his significant expertise in patent litigation. He was also recognized as a “Top Lawyer” by The Washingtonian.

Prior to pursuing a legal career, Erik earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Tech, where he developed a deep appreciation for cutting-edge technology and its potential to drive progress. His background in engineering equips him with a unique ability to comprehend intricate technical concepts. This enables him to effectively navigate the intricate world of patent litigation, combining his legal skills with technical know-how to provide comprehensive and strategic counsel to his clients.

In addition to his academic accomplishments, Erik served as an officer in the United States Navy. His military background instilled in him a strong sense of discipline, leadership, perseverance, and attention to detail; qualities that continue to guide him in his legal practice.

Contact:Read more about Erik Milch

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision last week in Inland Diamond Prods. Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., offers an important reminder for patent litigators: a PTAB’s factual finding in an inter partes review (IPR) does not automatically bind a district court. The case underscores that issue preclusion has clear boundaries when different forums apply different standards of proof.

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be a straightforward threshold question: any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” is eligible for protection. Yet over time, this once-clear principle has become anything but.

Although the statute itself has remained unchanged for two centuries, its interpretation has evolved dramatically through judicial decisions. And it is this common law precedent that has shaped the approach to the determination of patent subject matter eligibility.

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.

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a $4.7M verdict in a patent lawsuit involving two patents concerning next-generation sequencing methods—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,810 and 10,450,597. Both patents concern DNA preparation using different types of primers: “target-specific primers” that bind to regions of interest in the genome and other primers or adaptors…

In the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Acting Director has made substantial changes to the process for, and factors considered in, exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition. We have discussed these changes and recent decisions in prior blogs. Now, the PTO is facing legal challenges stemming from these policy changes. In one pertinent example, SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Federal Circuit resulting from the PTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, challenging the PTO Acting Director’s authority to enforce these new policies.

On the heels of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of iRhythm Technologies’ inter partes review petition, the PTO has now issued additional decisions clarifying the role of parties’ “expectations” in IPR proceedings. Along with the Acting Director’s guidance regarding discretionary denials of institution, decisions on two recent petitions further illuminate the PTO’s view of which factors should be given weight in deciding whether to deny an IPR petition.

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.

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.  

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.