The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Fraunhofer v. Sirius XM: CAFC Clarifies Limits of Equitable Estoppel in Patent Litigation

    ·

    The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 23-2267, holding that disputed issues of fact precluded the application of equitable estoppel to bar Fraunhofer’s patent infringement claims. While the decision arises from a complex licensing history involving satellite…

    Continue reading →


  • Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC: No Standing to Appeal IPR RPI Dispute

    ·

    In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025), the Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal for lack of Article III standing. Although Dolby had prevailed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Unified Patents, it sought to appeal the…

    Continue reading →


  • La Molisana v. United States: Inaccuracies in Protein Labeling Undermine Commerce’s Antidumping Comparison Method

    ·

    In La Molisana S.p.A. v. United States, the Federal Circuit issued a significant ruling that will reverberate across the antidumping landscape, particularly for food manufacturers and importers dealing with technical product classifications. The court held that the Department of Commerce’s methodology for comparing U.S. and foreign pasta products failed to comply with the statutory mandate…

    Continue reading →


  • Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.: Express Definitions in Patent Specs Can Limit Claim Scope

    ·

    In Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 23-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction that doomed Alnylam’s infringement case against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The decision reinforces the primacy of clear definitional language in a patent’s specification—even when it narrows claim scope beyond what a patentee may have intended.…

    Continue reading →


  • V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States: Court Strikes Down Presidential Tariff Authority Under IEEPA

    ·

    On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a major decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, holding that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—exceeded the limits of executive authority and violated the Constitution. The ruling vacates the tariffs and enjoins their enforcement, bringing them…

    Continue reading →


  • Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.: Inherent Anticipation Requires Full Scope of the Claim

    ·

    In a decision clarifying the boundaries between claim construction and factual findings of inherency, the Federal Circuit in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 23-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), reversed the PTAB’s determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 were not anticipated by the prior art. The court concluded…

    Continue reading →


  • Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.: No Standing for Consumers to Oppose Trademark Registrations Absent Commercial Interest

    ·

    In Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s opposition to a trademark registration, holding that an individual lacking a commercial interest does not have statutory standing under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 to oppose trademark registration. Applying the Lexmark zone-of-interests and…

    Continue reading →


  • EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (En Banc): CAFC Clarifies Daubert Gatekeeping for Patent Damages Experts

    ·

    In a closely watched en banc decision issued on May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert damages testimony that was not based on sufficient…

    Continue reading →


  • In re: Vetements Group AG — Generic Foreign Terms Cannot Serve as Trademarks

    ·

    In In re: Vetements Group AG, Nos. 2023-2050, -2051 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) refusal to register “VETEMENTS” as a trademark for clothing and online retail clothing store services. Applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents, the court agreed that “vetements,” the French word for…

    Continue reading →


  • All Quiet on the IP Front: SCOTUS Declines Review in All But One IP Case in the 2024–2025 Term

    ·

    In a typical show of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has closed the books on the 2024–2025 term without granting review in any patent, copyright, or trade secret case—and issuing only one decision in a trademark dispute. Despite a slew of cert petitions involving substantial questions of procedural and substantive law, Gideon Korrell believes…

    Continue reading →