The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Federal Circuit Rules on Key Patent Infringement and Damages Issues in Provisur v. Weber

    ·

    The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant ruling in Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., addressing key issues in patent infringement, willfulness, and damages. The case involved Provisur’s patents covering food-processing machinery and Weber’s alleged infringement of those patents. The court’s decision clarifies several critical aspects of patent law, particularly in the areas of infringement…

    Continue reading →


  • Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Surprise Patent Ineligibility Ruling in Astellas v. Sandoz

    ·

    In a major rebuke to a district court’s handling of patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit has vacated a decision that invalidated Astellas’s pharmaceutical patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101—a ruling the lower court made on its own initiative, without either party raising the issue. The court’s strong reaffirmation of the “party presentation principle” signals a…

    Continue reading →


  • Federal Circuit Overturns District Court’s Ruling on Indefiniteness in Teleflex v. Medtronic

    ·

    In a significant decision for medical device patent litigation, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s ruling that had invalidated key claims in a patent dispute between Teleflex and Medtronic. The case centered on guide extension catheter technology used in cardiovascular procedures, with the core issue being whether the term “substantially rigid portion/segment”…

    Continue reading →


  • Contour v. GoPro: Reversal of § 101 Ineligibility Finding for POV Camera Patent

    ·

    In a significant development in the evolving landscape of patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding that claims directed to a point-of-view (POV) action camera with real-time streaming and control functionality recite patent-eligible subject matter. The September 9, 2024 decision in Contour IP…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • Broadband iTV v. Amazon: CAFC Doubles Down on § 101 Ineligibility

    ·

    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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →