Patent Litigation

Subscribe to Patent Litigation via RSS

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”).

Formerly a niche venue for trade-related matters, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has emerged as a battleground for many high stakes intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology, life sciences, and consumer electronics industries. With the power to block infringing products from entering the U.S., the ITC has become an increasingly attractive option for patent holders seeking swift and decisive remedies. 

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (“Mirror Worlds”) sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”)—formerly Facebook, Inc.—in the Southern District of New York for patent infringement. The lawsuit involved three patents related to storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams. These patents purportedly introduced a unique method for automatically storing documents in chronological order with timestamps. Mirror Worlds accused several Facebook features, including the News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log, of infringing these patents.

patent denial

On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new memorandum that fundamentally changes how the PTAB will handle inter partes review and post grant review petitions

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s discretion to deny patent challenges with pending parallel district court litigation. The PTO has referred parties back to precedent for guidance including Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. Rescinding the 2022 memorandum also has the effect of effectively removing the proposed rules related to discretionary denial that were under consideration as recently as last year.

A recent precedential decision by the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, decided on March 4, 2025, has affirmed the Patent And Trial Appeal Board’s inter partes review (IPR) mixed ruling on appeal. The IPR relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices,” issued to Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”). The Board’s final written decision had found all claims unpatentable, except claims 11 and 13. Apple appealed as to claims 11 and 13 and GTP cross-appealed as to the remaining claims. This blog post gives an overview of the recent decision and provides some reminders and takeaways for litigation and IPR counsel-alike.

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.