Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- REGENEXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court affirming plaintiffs asserting their patents under the doctrine six times (versus denying DOE infringement on…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Any patent litigant unwilling to acquiesce to an adverse judgment from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can appeal to the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S. Code § 141. But the right to appeal is not the same as the wisdom of filing an appeal, as illustrated by the decision of…
-
By Michael Borella — Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims did not meet the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the Court finds the district court's construction to be correct, the stipulation precludes appellate…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Trial courts tend to get more than the benefit of the doubt when their decisions are viewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard, and juries similarly are affirmed unless there isn't substantial evidence supporting their verdicts. Both these rubrics, which extend more generally to cases involving disputes outside patent law,…
-
By Michael Borella — One would think that inventions relating to computer game software would easily meet the requirements for patent eligibility, as these inventions fundamentally involve technological processes and require computer implementation. But that is not always the case. Under current interpretations of the eligibility standard, not only does the language of the actual…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Interferences were rendered unnecessary with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2011, but they linger in disputes between patents and applications claiming priority to applications filed before the change to a "first-inventor-to-file" system. The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's priority determination in…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — It has long been understood that claim construction can, and frequently is, dispositive in patent litigation. This truism was the basis for the Federal Circuit affirming the District Court's decision against a generic drug producer in its recent decision in Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. And the case being…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit has taken the occasion, in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as district courts, to remand judgments whenever the Court believes that the record below is devoid of sufficient detail to properly assess the correctness of the decisions made below (see "Merck Sharp…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Venue in patent cases has been a topic of recent Supreme Court (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC) and Federal Circuit (In re Cray) consideration. Last month, the Federal Circuit again considered venue with regard to a motion to transfer and defendant's writ of mandamus challenging the…
Patent Docs 