Patent Litigation

Subscribe to Patent Litigation via RSS

For many patent cases, the United States District Court hearing your patent dispute can have a big impact on case strategy, budget and management, and even, to some extent, case outcomes. As we discussed earlier this year, how a patent owner approaches an alleged infringer can turn into a costly and inconvenient endeavor if forced to defend their patents in an unexpected jurisdiction. A recent case out of the District of Arizona illustrates the opposite scenario – where the activities of an accused infringer results in a suboptimal venue for that defendant.

Method-of-treatment (“MoT”) claims can be powerful tools for pharmaceutical companies seeking to extend market exclusivity for their products after the original composition-of-matter patents expire. However, the District of Delaware’s recent decision in Novo Nordisk v. Mylan is another reminder that the scope of method of treatment claims must be aligned with an FDA approved drug label. 

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…

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 Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC  provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s specification can evidence that the patentee intended for a term in the patent claims to have a different…

In April, the Federal Circuit issued a significant patent law ruling involving artificial intelligence. In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp, the Court addressed a core question facing many AI-driven businesses: When are solutions applying machine learning to real-world problems inventive and patentable? The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the underlying case at the pleading stage under § 101 and held that applying generic machine learning models to scheduling and programming tasks—without disclosing any technological advances to the underlying machine learning techniques—failed to meet the eligibility standards under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

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.