The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • EscapeX IP v. Google: Frivolous Litigation, Fee Shifting, and the Perils of Doubling Down

    ·

    On November 25, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a sharp reminder that patent litigation is not a game of attrition and that courts will use fee shifting and sanctions to deter claims that lack a meaningful factual or legal foundation. In EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, the court affirmed a district court’s award of…

    Continue reading →


  • Duke v. Sandoz: When a Genus Claim Becomes a Forest Without Blaze Marks

    ·

    On November 18, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a significant written description decision in Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., reversing a jury verdict and holding claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 invalid for lack of adequate written description. The opinion is a textbook application of the court’s “blaze marks” jurisprudence and a reminder that…

    Continue reading →


  • Smartrend Mfg Grp v. Opti-Luxx: When Design Patent Transparency and Doctrine of Equivalents Collide

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., Nos. 2024-1616, 2024-1650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2025), offers a layered and instructive treatment of two recurring fault lines in patent litigation: claim construction in design patents and the limits of the doctrine of equivalents in utility patents. In a single opinion,…

    Continue reading →


  • Canatex Completion Sol’ns v. Wellmatics: When Judicial Claim Correction Saves Patent Claims from Indefiniteness

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s November 12, 2025 decision in Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, No. 2024-1466, provides a clear and disciplined application of the court’s demanding doctrine of judicial claim correction. Reversing a district court’s finding of indefiniteness, the panel held that an obvious drafting error in a patent claim could and should be…

    Continue reading →


  • In re Motorola Solutions, Inc.: Mandamus, Fintiv, and the Hard Limits on Challenging IPR Deinstitution

    ·

    On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Motorola Solutions, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to overturn the USPTO’s decision to deinstitute eight inter partes reviews involving Stellar, LLC’s patents. The order in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 25-134 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025), reinforces…

    Continue reading →


  • V.O.S. Selections (Learning Resources) v. Trump at the Supreme Court: Verbs, Taxes, and an Exit Ramp

    ·

    The Supreme Court argument in the tariff cases presented the Justices with a familiar but high-stakes question: how far an old statute can be stretched to support a novel assertion of executive power. The Federal Circuit had already answered the core statutory question en banc, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does…

    Continue reading →


  • Merck Serono v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures: When “By Another” Really Means Everyone

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Nos. 2025-1210, -1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), delivers a clarifying—and unforgiving—interpretation of what it means for prior art to be “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102. The opinion reinforces a long-standing but often underappreciated principle: unless the inventive entity…

    Continue reading →


  • Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences: When “Outer Frame” Becomes “Self-Expanding” by Implication

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 2024-1145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2025), offers a crisp and cautionary reminder of how easily careful prose in a patent specification can harden into claim-limiting lexicography. The case sits at the intersection of claim construction doctrine and drafting practice, and it reinforces…

    Continue reading →


  • Centripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks: When Recusal Fails but Secondary Considerations Revive an IPR

    ·

    On October 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a mixed but consequential decision in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision and remanding for further proceedings. While the court firmly rejected Centripetal’s sweeping recusal and due process challenges, it nonetheless concluded that the Board…

    Continue reading →


  • Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP: Prosecution Disclaimer in a Later Continuation Can Narrow an Entire Patent Family

    ·

    On October 17, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a detailed and consequential opinion in Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, affirming a judgment of non-infringement while also affirming the district court’s rejection of indefiniteness challenges. The case provides a clear reminder that arguments made during prosecution of a later-filed continuation application can narrow…

    Continue reading →