Patent Law

Subscribe to Patent Law 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.

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains one of the most hotly contested and unpredictable areas of U.S. patent law. In the years following the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012), lower courts, the USPTO, and the Federal Circuit have wrestled with the proper application of the two-step framework for determining whether an invention is directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon—and, if so, whether it includes an inventive concept sufficient to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.

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

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) remain a common strategic priority for companies aiming to grow, innovate, or strengthen their market position. However, the complexity of these transactions necessitates meticulous preparation and due diligence. Patent due diligence is a critical component of the intellectual property (“IP”) due diligence process in M&A deals, particularly for tech centric businesses. Overlooking this step can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions post-transaction.

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.

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.