Year: 2024
-
ParkerVision v. Qualcomm: Collateral Estoppel and Expert Exclusion in Patent Litigation
After more than a decade of litigation between ParkerVision and Qualcomm, the Federal Circuit has vacated summary judgment of non-infringement and reversed key Daubert rulings that had hobbled ParkerVision’s case. The court’s decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024), sheds new light on the proper application of…
-
Osseo Imaging v. Planmeca: Rejection of Temporal Limitation on Expert Qualifications
In its September 2024 decision in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the standard for expert qualifications in patent cases, declining to impose a temporal requirement that an expert possess ordinary skill in the art as of the time of invention. The ruling has notable implications for litigation strategy, particularly…
-
Broadband iTV v. Amazon: UI Claims Fail Section 101
In its recent decision Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling that all asserted claims from five patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion, authored by Judge Reyna, offers a comprehensive application of the Alice two-step framework and reiterates that automation…
-
WARF v. Apple: A Cautionary Tale of Waiver and Preclusion
In its August 28, 2024 opinion in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decisive ruling affirming two final judgments in favor of Apple, closing the door on WARF’s decade-long effort to assert U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 across successive generations of Apple processors. The decision underscores the high stakes of…
-
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV: “Red Flags” in § 285 Fee Awards
In a significant opinion issued on August 23, 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV, LLC, No. 23-1035. The decision serves as a clarifying reminder that the label “exceptional” requires more than a retrospective string of unfavorable…
-
Platinum Optics v. Viavi: Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Standing Despite Prior Infringement Disputes
In Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024), the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) decision for lack of Article III standing. The court declined to reach the merits of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision upholding the validity of…
-
Pegasystems v. Appian: Virginia Supreme Court Reverses $2 Billion Trade Secret Verdict Due to Lack of Specificity
In a major ruling issued on July 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp., 904 S.E.2d 247 (Va. 2024), reversed a $2.036 billion judgment in favor of Appian Corporation against its competitor Pegasystems Inc., holding that Appian failed to identify its trade secrets with reasonable particularity and did not…
-
Motorola v. Hytera: DTSA Reaches Foreign Misappropriation and Supports $271M Punitive Award
In Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., 108 F.4th 458 (7th Cir. July 2, 2024), the Seventh Circuit issued a sweeping and consequential decision affirming a major trade secret misappropriation verdict against Chinese telecommunications company Hytera. The appellate court’s ruling is especially notable for two reasons: (1) its endorsement of the Defend Trade…