The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Wyeth v. AstraZeneca: Federal Circuit Invalidates Cancer-Treatment Claims for Failure to Enable Patient Dosing

    ·

    Introduction The Federal Circuit’s decision in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026), affirms that a patent claiming daily administration of a therapeutically effective drug dosage to a patient must teach more than laboratory activity and broad projected dosage ranges. The specification must provide sufficient guidance for a…

    Continue reading →


  • TrackTime v. Amazon.com: Federal Circuit Requires Contextual § 112(f) Analysis for Software Claim Terms

    ·

    Introduction The Federal Circuit’s decision in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2024-1102 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2026), clarifies how courts must determine whether software claim language invokes means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), particularly when a claim recites “executable program code” configured to perform specified operations. The court vacated a judgment…

    Continue reading →


  • Otsuka America Pharmaceutical v. Hetero Labs: Federal Circuit Upholds Generic-Drug Injunction but Requires Rule 65(c) Security

    ·

    Introduction The Federal Circuit’s decision in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, Case No. 2025-2016 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2026), upheld a preliminary injunction delaying the launch of a generic version of Nuedexta but vacated the district court’s decision allowing the patent owner to obtain that injunction without posting security under Federal Rule…

    Continue reading →


  • Enanta v. Pfizer: Federal Circuit Rejects Provisional Priority Based on an Alleged Typographical Error

    ·

    Introduction The Federal Circuit’s decision in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), holds that a later patent cannot claim the filing date of a provisional application when the provisional expressly discloses a different chemical range, even if the applicant contends that the difference resulted from a typographical…

    Continue reading →


  • Ironburg v. Valve: Federal Circuit Clarifies How Parties Must Prove IPR Estoppel Under §315(e)

    ·

    Introduction The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2024-2088 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2026), limits when a patent owner may use inter partes review estoppel to prevent an accused infringer from asserting prior-art invalidity grounds in district court. The court held that a reference is not necessarily discoverable merely…

    Continue reading →


  • Hafeman v. Google: Federal Circuit Bars Review of Sotera-Based Institution Challenges and Reinforces Nexus Requirements for Secondary Considerations

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Hafeman v. Google LLC, Case No. 24-1600 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 5, 2026) addresses three recurring issues in inter partes review practice: the scope of appellate review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), the limits of claim construction arguments raised after PTAB proceedings have concluded, and the evidentiary burden required to establish…

    Continue reading →


  • Hikma v. Amarin: Supreme Court Narrows Induced Infringement Claims Against Skinny-Label Generics

    ·

    A Significant Win for Generic Drug Manufacturers The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., Case No. 24-889 (Jun. 4, 2026), is one of the most important patent law decisions of the 2025-2026 Term. While the case arises from the pharmaceutical industry’s unique Hatch-Waxman framework, its significance extends well…

    Continue reading →


  • Ollnova v. ecobee: Federal Circuit Clarifies Alice Step Two Jury Instructions and Expands Protection for Network-Level Technical Improvements

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC , Case No. 25-1045 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2026 ), delivers several significant holdings for patent litigators and technology companies. The opinion addresses jury unanimity in multi-patent trials, the proper role of juries in patent eligibility disputes under Section 101, and the distinction…

    Continue reading →


  • AGI SureTrack v. Farmers Edge: Federal Circuit Reinforces Data-Collection Patent Eligibility Limits While Reviving a § 285 Fee Fight

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in AGI SureTrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. , Case No. (Fed. Cir. Jun. 2, 2026), provides another significant reminder that patents directed to collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information remain vulnerable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, even when framed as solving industry-specific technical problems. At the same time, the court’s treatment…

    Continue reading →


  • Insulet v. EOFlow: Federal Circuit Reverses $450 Million Trade Secret Verdict on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., Case No. 25-1807 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026), arrives just days after the court’s major trade secret decision in Versata v. Ford, continuing what is becoming a significant period of doctrinal development under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). While Versata focused heavily on…

    Continue reading →