Patents

Subscribe to Patents via RSS

This case addresses two primary issues (i) whether the district court erred in construing the claim term “composition” in FMC’s pesticide patents to mean only “stable compositions,” based on disclosures found in a provisional application and a related patent, even though the asserted patents contained no stability language and (ii) whether the district court misapplied the preliminary injunction standard in rejecting Sharda’s anticipation and obviousness defenses.

Continue Reading Deletions Matter: The Federal Circuit Rejects Importing Language from Provisional and Related Patent into FMC’s Asserted Claims

This case addresses whether the district court correctly applied prosecution disclaimer to (i) import a negative limitation into a child patent claim based on prosecution of a related parent patent with materially different claim language, and (ii) read a further negative limitation about a guide wire’s path into two claims based largely on examiner statements and applicant conduct in an ancestor patent’s prosecution and later IPR-related briefing.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reins In Prosecution Disclaimer in Maquet v. Abiomed

This case addresses whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Google under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after deeming EscapeX’s suit “exceptional,” denying EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend the fee judgment based on purported “newly discovered evidence,” and imposing additional fees against EscapeX and its counsel, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for filing a frivolous post-judgment motion.

Continue Reading No Mulligans: Frivolous Post-Judgment Motion Triggers § 1927 Sanctions After § 285 Award

In Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a finding of design patent infringement due to an erroneous claim construction. The panel also reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), finding the accused products failed to perform a function required by the asserted utility patent.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upends Two Infringement Judgments

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is rolling out a new Automated Search Pilot Program, offering applicants a first-of-its-kind opportunity to receive a pre-examination, AI-generated prior art search report. The program’s stated goals are to improve prosecution efficiency and the quality of patent examination by providing an Automated Search Results Notice (ASRN) before an examiner reviews the case. The ASRN is intended to provide an earlier communication regarding potential prior art issues and could bring about significant changes in how utility filings are prosecuted and strategized.

Continue Reading USPTO’s Automated Search Pilot Program: Early Prior Art Insights—Promises and Pitfalls for Patent Applicants

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the close of Federal Circuit review for this phase of a high-profile patent dispute and confirms the boundaries on IPR estoppel set by the Federal Circuit.

Continue Reading Final Word on IPR Estoppel: Rehearing Denied in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403.

Continue Reading Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars

In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless (Sept. 3, 2025), follows last year’s similar outcome in American Honda, GM, Nissan & Tesla v. Neo Wireless (Nov. 1, 2024).

Continue Reading PTAB Again Upholds the Heavily Litigated Neo Wireless Patent: What the Latest Decisions Mean for Automakers

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.

Background

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia. Janssen sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ’906 Patent), after Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Invega Sustenna. The ’906 Patent covers specific dosing regimens for Invega Sustenna.

Following two bench trials and a prior Federal Circuit review, the only remaining issue was Teva’s obviousness challenge to the ’906 Patent.

Continue Reading Claiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness