After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1] Background In 2011, ParkerVision sued Qualcomm alleging that it infringed its patented technology for down-converting electromagnetic signals using “energy sampling.” A jury rejected Qualcomm’s invalidity claims and found ..read more

This case addresses[1] the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a party’s waiver of a doctrine-of-equivalents theory in an initial lawsuit extends to a subsequent case involving a newer iteration of the technology previously litigated ..read more

Celanese International Corporation, Celanese (Malta) Company 2 Limited, and Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. (collectively, “Celanese”) filed a petition before the United States International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), alleging that Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Jinhe USA LLC (collectively “Jinhe”) and other entities violated 19 U.S.C. § 337.[1] Celanese alleged that Jinhe and other entities were ..read more

This Federal Circuit opinion addresses a district court’s decision granting plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.[1] Background Plaintiff Natera, Inc. (“Natera”) and defendant NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (“NeoGenomics”) are research focused healthcare companies operating in the oncology testing industry. Both companies manufacture products used for early detection of cancer relapse. Natera owns two relevant patents, U.S ..read more

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. and Nouri E. Hakim v. Lindsey Laurain and Eazy-PZ, LLC, Nos. 2022-1905, 2022-1970 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2024) addressed several issues, including: (1) what evidence of litigation misconduct may support a finding of unclean hands, barring relief for related claims, (2) the appropriate legal analysis for finding a patent unenforceable due ..read more

This decision[1] emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Background Sanho Corp. appealed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) which found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,572,429 (‘429 ..read more

In Voice Tech Corp., v. Unified Patents, LLC 2022-2163 (Fed Cir. August 1, 2024), the case addresses whether failure to re-raise arguments in a request for rehearing before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) forfeits such arguments on appeal to the Federal Circuit. This case also addresses what an appellant must show to have ..read more

This article was first published by ALM / Law.com in The Intellectual Property Strategist I. Introduction Organizations across all industries are adopting generative AI systems as critical components of their business strategy. These systems often take the form of hosted or on-premises pretrained large language models (LLMs), both proprietary and open source. Organizations acquiring access to ..read more

The case of Amarin Pharma, Inc. and its affiliates versus Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC presents a fascinating intersection of patent law, FDA regulatory strategy, and pharmaceutical marketing. Central to this legal dispute are U.S. Patents 9,700,537 and 10,568,861, owned by Amarin, which describe methods of reducing cardiovascular risk by administering icosapent ethyl, a compound found in the drug Vascepa®. Vascepa® had initially received FDA approval for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia, a condition marked by high levels of triglycerides in the blood. Howev ..read more

The USPTO has published updated patent eligibility guidance (effective July 17, 2024) for AI-related inventions to help determine subject matter eligibility under 35 § U.S.C. 101. This guidance is timely as roughly 20% of all recent patent filings are AI related. It is important to note that based on prior guidance from February 2024, if an AI tool itself invents something, that is not patentable. Only inventions with significant human contribution are patentable. Thus, this does not preclude AI-assisted inventions. This February guidance was supplemented in April 2024 with ..read more