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.
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
For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the effect of amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals as they relate to admissibility of damages expert testimony—particularly when a per-unit royalty rate is derived from three allegedly comparable lump-sum licenses.
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.
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, its impact on patent law is raising critical legal questions. From the recognition of AI as an inventor and potential infringement risks posed by the AI-generated outputs to the use of AI in patent validity challenges, the legal landscape is rapidly evolving. This article explores how generative AI is reshaping patent litigation, including the legal implications for inventorship, infringement and validity.
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.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). The Federal Circuit’s ruling, and the subsequent denial of Edwards’s petition for rehearing en banc, underscores
Litigators in the life sciences field are no doubt familiar with the so-called “artificial” act of infringement established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A)-(B): namely, that a party can be sued for patent infringement by merely filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a generic drug or a Biologics License
In an unprecedented PTAB decision involving Spectrum Solutions LLC and Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, the Board found all five challenged patents invalid and imposed sanction against patent owner Longhorn for failure to meet the duty of candor and fair dealing. The board determined that Longhorn selectively disclosed testing results to