Technology Information Law Blog by Charles Gideon Korrell

Tag: CAFC

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

    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 attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. The opinion reads less like a close call and more like a checklist of what not to do when asserting a patent.

    At its core, the decision underscores three interrelated principles that continue to shape post–Octane Fitness fee jurisprudence: the importance of a real pre-suit investigation, the relevance of party conduct after receiving notice of defects, and the limits of “zealous advocacy” when counsel persists with motions that only multiply proceedings.

    Background: From Texas to California, and From Infringement to Fees

    EscapeX sued Google, alleging that Google’s YouTube Music product infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113, titled “System and Method for Generating Artist-Specified Dynamic Albums.” Google responded early with correspondence explaining why the accused features were not present in the identified product and why EscapeX could not have conducted an adequate pre-suit investigation. EscapeX then amended its complaint to accuse a different product feature, “YouTube Video with Auto-Add.”

    That pivot did not improve matters. Google sent further letters explaining that the newly accused feature predated the patent’s priority date, meaning that if it infringed, it would also anticipate and invalidate the asserted claims. Google repeatedly asked EscapeX to voluntarily dismiss the action. EscapeX did not respond.

    Procedurally, the case stumbled along. EscapeX failed to respond to Google’s motion to transfer venue, prompting the court to note EscapeX’s “troublesome” and repeated failures to file timely responses before granting transfer to the Northern District of California.

    Meanwhile, in a separate action involving the same patent, a district court in New York held all claims of the ’113 patent ineligible under § 101. EscapeX did not appeal that ruling. Only after Google again requested dismissal did EscapeX attempt to file what it styled as a “joint stipulation of dismissal” representing that both parties agreed to bear their own fees. That representation was false. EscapeX had not obtained Google’s consent. The stipulation was withdrawn and later replaced with a proper dismissal that was silent on fees.

    Google then moved for attorneys’ fees under § 285. The district court granted the motion, awarding approximately $191,000. EscapeX responded with a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment based on “newly discovered evidence,” consisting of declarations from its president and an engineer describing the steps taken during its pre-suit investigation. The court denied that motion as frivolous and later granted Google additional fees under § 1927, holding EscapeX and its counsel jointly and severally liable for roughly $63,500 incurred in opposing the Rule 59(e) motion.

    EscapeX appealed across the board.

    The Federal Circuit’s Framework

    The Federal Circuit applied its established standards of review: abuse of discretion for § 285 determinations, Rule 59(e) motions, and § 1927 sanctions. Importantly, the court rejected EscapeX’s attempt to argue that less deference was warranted because the transferee court had presided over the case for only a short time. The panel explained that deference does not depend on how long a judge has had a case, and to hold otherwise would perversely incentivize bad behavior early in litigation.

    Section 285: Pre-Suit Investigation and Litigation Conduct

    The heart of the appeal concerned the fee award under § 285. Under Octane Fitness, an exceptional case is one that “stands out” based on the totality of the circumstances, including the substantive strength of a party’s position and the manner in which the case was litigated.

    Here, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that EscapeX failed to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation and advanced frivolous claims. The record supported the finding that EscapeX “cobbled together” features from different Google products and accused functionality that predated the patent. A basic online search would have revealed the timing issue. The court also emphasized that EscapeX was repeatedly placed on notice of these defects through Google’s letters and yet chose to press on.

    In affirming, the panel relied on a line of cases recognizing that inadequate pre-suit diligence can support exceptionality, including Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Federal Circuit decisions such as Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC. The court also reiterated that early, focused notice from the accused infringer can be relevant, citing Thermolife Int’l LLC v. GNC Corp. and Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc..

    EscapeX argued that the district court improperly relied on correspondence between the parties and punished it for being a non-practicing entity. The Federal Circuit was unpersuaded. Communications showing that a party was on notice of baselessness are a proper factor. And while the district court remarked that the suit appeared designed to extract a nuisance settlement from a “tech giant,” that observation went to deterrence and motivation, not the mere status of EscapeX as an NPE. The panel pointed to precedent such as SFA Sys., LLC v. Newegg Inc., which recognizes that patterns of nuisance litigation are relevant to exceptionality.

    For practitioners, the lesson is familiar but worth repeating: pre-suit investigation must be grounded in verifiable facts about the accused product, and continuing to litigate after receiving credible notice of fatal defects can quickly turn an ordinary loss into an exceptional case.

    Rule 59(e): “Newly Discovered” Does Not Mean “Newly Drafted”

    EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion fared no better. Under Ninth Circuit law, such motions are limited to newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in law. Evidence is not “newly discovered” if it was always within the movant’s control and could have been presented earlier.

    The declarations from EscapeX’s own president and engineer did not qualify. These witnesses were available from the start, and their knowledge of the pre-suit investigation was not newly unearthed. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle for sandbagging or for re-litigating issues with evidence that could have been submitted the first time around.

    EscapeX also gestured at “manifest injustice,” but the panel found that argument forfeited and, in any event, meritless. There was nothing unjust about awarding fees where the underlying claims were frivolous and the litigation conduct problematic.

    Section 1927: When Zeal Turns Reckless

    The most pointed aspect of the decision may be the affirmance of sanctions against counsel under § 1927. That statute authorizes courts to require attorneys to personally satisfy excess fees incurred due to unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of proceedings.

    The Federal Circuit agreed that EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion crossed that line. The district court found the motion frivolous and noted that EscapeX’s attorneys refused to withdraw or amend it even after Google identified its defects. That refusal, at a minimum, constituted recklessness.

    The panel emphasized that zealous advocacy does not excuse filing motions that are baseless and unsupported by competent inquiry. Quoting Ninth Circuit authority, the court observed that such motions provide objective evidence of improper purpose. Counsel could have avoided sanctions simply by not filing the motion. Declining to file a frivolous Rule 59(e) motion is not abandonment of a client; it is adherence to professional obligations.

    Practical Takeaways

    Several practical points emerge from EscapeX v. Google:

    First, pre-suit investigation remains a cornerstone of responsible patent enforcement. Courts expect plaintiffs to understand the accused product and its history before filing. Publicly available information matters.

    Second, notice matters. When an accused infringer provides early, detailed explanations of non-infringement or invalidity, continuing to litigate without addressing those issues increases fee risk.

    Third, procedural missteps and misrepresentations, even if corrected, can color a court’s view of litigation conduct. Accuracy and transparency in filings are non-negotiable.

    Fourth, post-judgment motions should be approached with caution. Rule 59(e) is narrow, and using it to repackage old evidence or arguments invites sanctions.

    Finally, counsel must remember that their duty to advocate is bounded by duties to the court. As the Federal Circuit reiterated, exceptionality cannot hide behind claims of zeal.

    Charles Gideon Korrell notes that this decision fits squarely within a broader trend of courts using fee shifting and sanctions to police the outer bounds of patent assertion behavior. Charles Gideon Korrell believes that the opinion will be cited frequently in future disputes where defendants seek fees based on inadequate pre-suit diligence and post-notice persistence. Charles Gideon Korrell also observes that the joint and several liability imposed on counsel under § 1927 serves as a pointed reminder that strategic decisions about motions practice can have personal consequences.

    Conclusion

    The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC leaves little doubt about the judiciary’s tolerance for patent cases that are frivolous from the start and compounded by questionable litigation tactics. The opinion reinforces established standards under § 285 and § 1927 while offering a clear roadmap of conduct that can transform a routine dismissal into a costly defeat. For parties and counsel alike, the message is straightforward: investigate first, listen when warned, and think carefully before doubling down.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 broad chemical disclosures, without meaningful guidance, remain vulnerable even after surviving a full jury trial.

    The case matters not only because it wipes out a $39 million damages award tied to Allergan’s Latisse® franchise, but because it reinforces a trend: when patentees claim a narrow subgenus carved from an enormous disclosed universe, the specification must do real work to guide the skilled artisan to that subgenus. Laundry lists and branching options will not suffice.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell has noted in other contexts, written description doctrine often does its most consequential work not at the margins, but where commercial success meets aggressive claim drafting. This case fits that pattern neatly.

    Background: PGF Analogs and Hair Growth

    The ’270 patent, jointly owned by Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC, claims methods of growing hair using non-naturally occurring prostaglandin F (PGF) analogs. The patent has a priority date of 2000 and issued in 2017. Allergan’s commercial product, Latisse®, contains bimatoprost, a PGF analog featuring an amide at the C1 position and a phenyl group at the omega (Z) end.

    Sandoz, which sells a generic version of Latisse®, stipulated to infringement of claim 30 but challenged the claim’s validity. Among several defenses, Sandoz argued that claim 30 lacked adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

    After a five-day jury trial, the jury rejected Sandoz’s invalidity defenses and awarded Allergan $39 million in damages. The district court denied Sandoz’s post-trial motions. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit took a very different view.

    Standard of Review and the “Doubly High” Burden

    Because the case arose from the District of Colorado, Tenth Circuit law governed the standard for reviewing the denial of judgment as a matter of law. Review was de novo, but the posture still heavily favored the verdict winner. Written description is a question of fact, and invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

    As the court emphasized, Sandoz’s burden on appeal was “doubly high.” It had to show that no reasonable jury could have failed to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that claim 30 lacked adequate written description.

    That framing makes the outcome striking. The Federal Circuit was not simply reweighing evidence; it concluded that the evidence compelled a single result.

    The Scope Mismatch: Billions Disclosed, Thousands Claimed

    A central, undisputed premise drove the analysis. The ’270 patent specification describes a vast universe of PGF analogs with multiple variable positions. Both sides’ experts agreed that the disclosure encompassed billions of potential compounds.

    Claim 30, by contrast, covered a much smaller subgenus. Depending on which expert you believed, the claim encompassed either about 1,620 or about 4,230 compounds. Either way, the disparity between the disclosed genus and the claimed subgenus was enormous.

    That mismatch is not fatal by itself. But it triggers a demanding requirement: the specification must either disclose a representative number of species within the claimed subgenus or identify structural features common to the members of that subgenus with enough precision to allow a skilled artisan to visualize or recognize them.

    Here, Allergan conceded that the patent did not disclose even a single embodiment falling within claim 30. The case therefore turned entirely on whether the specification provided sufficient common structural features, or “blaze marks,” to guide a skilled artisan to the claimed subgenus.

    Blaze Marks and the Prostaglandin “Hairpin”

    Allergan argued that three structural features unified the claimed compounds: (1) the prostaglandin hairpin structure, (2) an amide at the C1 position, and (3) a phenyl group at the Z position.

    The Federal Circuit was unpersuaded, starting with the hairpin. Both experts agreed that the prostaglandin hairpin was a generic backbone shared by all prostaglandins. Billions of compounds fit that description. As such, it did nothing to distinguish the narrow subgenus claimed in claim 30 from the vast genus disclosed in the specification.

    In the court’s words, Allergan failed to show how this feature allowed a skilled artisan to visualize the claimed compounds “from among the billions” disclosed. Generic commonality is not enough.

    The Maze at the C1 Position

    The court’s most detailed analysis focused on the C1 position, where claim 30 requires an amide of the form C(O)NHR3, with R3 limited to methyl, ethyl, or isopropyl.

    The specification listed 13 “options” for the C1 substituent. But as the court explained, that characterization was misleading. Only four of the 13 were singular chemical groups. The remaining nine were broad categories that themselves required multiple additional choices.

    Selecting C(O)NHR3, for example, was only the first step. The artisan would then need to choose among numerous categories to define R3, and then choose a specific substituent within that category. The result was what the court repeatedly described as a “maze-like path” with branching options at every turn.

    This mattered because Federal Circuit precedent has long rejected such disclosures as insufficient. Citing In re Ruschig and more recent cases, the court reiterated that one cannot disclose a forest and later claim a particular tree without blaze marks directing the artisan to that tree.

    Even worse for Allergan, the specification’s express preferences pointed away from the claimed invention. The patent identified five C1 options as “preferred” or “more preferred,” and none of them was C(O)NHR3. Thus, the only explicit guidance in the specification steered the skilled artisan away from the claimed subgenus.

    Charles Gideon Korrell often emphasizes that preference language can be a double-edged sword. Here, the Federal Circuit treated it as exactly that.

    Synthesis Examples Were Not Enough

    Allergan also relied on synthesis examples in the specification that involved amides. But the court found this unavailing. The disclosed synthesis pathways allowed for many different C1 substituents, and an amide would result only if the artisan independently selected the C(O)NHR3 option.

    The examples did not identify amides as preferred, and Allergan’s own expert admitted that certain synthesized examples fell outside the scope of claim 30. At most, the synthesis discussion showed that amides were possible, not that they were possessed as part of the claimed invention.

    Possibility, the court reminded, is not possession.

    The Z Position and Phenyl Groups

    The analysis at the Z position followed a similar pattern. Claim 30 requires a phenyl group at the omega end. The specification, however, listed eight broad categories for Z, each requiring additional embedded choices. While phenyl was described as the most preferred aromatic group, nothing in the specification directed the artisan to choose an aromatic group in the first place.

    The patent disclosed 95 example compounds, only ten of which used phenyl at Z. Other substituents appeared more frequently. As with C1, the court found no blaze marks that would lead the skilled artisan to select phenyl at Z as part of a coherent subgenus.

    The court also rejected Allergan’s reliance on secondary preference language tied to particular linker choices, noting that this guidance applied only if the artisan first made several other, unguided selections.

    Reversal Despite the Jury Verdict

    Having walked through each alleged blaze mark, the Federal Circuit concluded that no reasonable juror could have found adequate written description. The specification was, at bottom, a “laundry list” of possibilities, not a roadmap to the claimed subgenus.

    Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s judgment and held claim 30 invalid under § 112(a), citing cases such as Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Idenix Pharmaceuticals v. Gilead Sciences, and BASF Plant Science v. CSIRO.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell observes, the decision underscores how unforgiving written description doctrine can be when claims are drafted with commercial hindsight rather than contemporaneous disclosure discipline.

    Takeaways

    Several practical lessons emerge:

    1. Subgenus claims demand precision. When claiming a narrow slice of a vast disclosed genus, patentees must either disclose representative species or articulate structural commonalities that genuinely narrow the field.
    2. Branching disclosures are dangerous. Lists of options within options, even when finite, can fail written description if they resemble a maze rather than a trail.
    3. Preference language matters. Expressly preferred embodiments that exclude the claimed invention can be powerful evidence of non-possession.
    4. Jury wins are not immune. Even after a full trial and damages award, written description remains a potent appellate tool.

    For litigants and drafters alike, Duke University v. Sandoz is a reminder that § 112(a) is not a technicality. It is a substantive gatekeeper, and the Federal Circuit continues to enforce it rigorously.

    Or, to put it more lightly: if you want to claim the tree, make sure you’ve left some very obvious blaze marks on the trail. Otherwise, the forest will swallow your claim whole.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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, the court vacated a design patent infringement verdict due to an erroneous construction of “transparency,” reversed a jury verdict of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and vacated a permanent injunction. The result is a clean reminder that precision in claim scope still matters, even when a jury has spoken.

    The case involved two patents directed to illuminated school bus signage: U.S. Design Patent No. D932,930 and U.S. Patent No. 11,348,491. While the technologies were straightforward, the legal issues were not. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, this decision exemplifies the Federal Circuit’s continued insistence that courts, not juries, define the legal boundaries within which infringement must be assessed, particularly when intrinsic evidence speaks clearly.

    Background and Procedural Posture

    Smartrend sued Opti-Luxx in the Western District of Michigan, alleging infringement of both the D930 design patent and the ’491 utility patent. After trial, a jury found Opti-Luxx infringed both patents. The district court denied Opti-Luxx’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and entered a permanent injunction.

    On appeal, Opti-Luxx challenged (1) the admission of Smartrend’s expert testimony and the construction of “transparency” in the design patent, and (2) the jury’s finding of infringement of the ’491 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Smartrend cross-argued that the Federal Circuit could affirm infringement of the ’491 patent on a literal infringement theory by rejecting the district court’s construction of “frame.”

    The Federal Circuit did none of those things. Instead, it dismantled the verdict piece by piece.

    The D930 Design Patent: Transparency Is Not Translucency

    The D930 patent claims the ornamental design for an LED light panel “as shown and described.” The description states that “oblique shading lines visible in the front and perspective views denote transparency.” That single sentence became outcome-determinative.

    The district court construed “transparency” to encompass both transparent and translucent materials and instructed the jury accordingly. The Federal Circuit held this construction was legally erroneous.

    Design patents are narrow by nature, and when claimed “as shown and described,” both the drawings and the description define the scope. The court emphasized that while the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure recognizes that oblique shading may sometimes indicate transparent or translucent surfaces, the patentee here expressly narrowed the meaning by stating that the shading “denote[s] transparency.” That language mattered.

    Transparency, the court held, does not mean translucency. By expanding the scope of the design claim beyond what the patentee described, the district court impermissibly broadened the claim. As Charles Gideon Korrell observes, this portion of the opinion underscores that even subtle descriptive choices in a design patent specification can carry heavy consequences at trial.

    Because the jury’s infringement verdict rested on an incorrect construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of infringement and remanded for a new trial on the D930 patent. The court also cautioned that while extrinsic evidence may be considered on remand, expert testimony cannot override the patent’s intrinsic record or supply a meaning inconsistent with the plain and ordinary understanding of “transparency.”

    Expert Testimony and Forfeiture

    Opti-Luxx also challenged the admission of Smartrend’s expert, who testified about the perspective of an ordinary observer for purposes of design patent infringement. The Federal Circuit rejected that challenge on forfeiture grounds.

    Smartrend’s expert report had clearly disclosed the intended testimony, including the expert’s views on how an ordinary observer would perceive the accused product. Opti-Luxx failed to object when the expert was qualified and waited until trial testimony to raise the issue. That was too late.

    Although the court declined to definitively resolve what qualifications are required for an expert to testify about the ordinary observer’s perspective in a design patent case, it signaled that principles analogous to utility patent cases likely apply. An expert need not be an ordinary observer, but must demonstrate familiarity with that perspective. Still, forfeiture resolved the issue cleanly.

    The ’491 Patent: A Frame Means a Frame

    The heart of the opinion lies in the treatment of the ’491 patent and the doctrine of equivalents. Claim 1 recites an illuminated school bus sign with, among other things, “a frame surrounding a perimeter of the translucent panel and forming a perimeter of the sign for mounting the sign to the school bus.”

    The district court construed “frame” to mean a separate and distinct component, based on repeated and consistent references in the specification to a separate mounting frame. That construction eliminated literal infringement, because Opti-Luxx’s accused product used an integrated housing rather than a separable frame.

    The Federal Circuit affirmed that construction. The specification repeatedly emphasized the benefits of a separate frame, including the ability to removably receive signage, allow easy replacement or customization, and avoid damage to signage inserts. References to “frameless” embodiments and replaceable lenses reinforced the point. Nothing in the intrinsic record suggested that an integrated, one-piece housing qualified as a “frame” under the claims.

    Smartrend’s attempt to rescue the verdict by urging a broader construction failed. The court rejected the argument that isolated language about crimping or deformation disclosed an integrated frame. Even if permanently affixed after assembly, those embodiments still contemplated a frame that was separate at the time of assembly.

    Doctrine of Equivalents: Function Means All of the Function

    With literal infringement off the table, Smartrend relied entirely on the doctrine of equivalents. That theory also collapsed.

    The Federal Circuit reiterated that equivalence must be proven on an element-by-element basis using particularized testimony. Under the function-way-result test, the accused structure must perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element.

    Here, the intrinsic evidence defined the function of the claimed frame. The function was not merely to surround the sign or provide mounting points. It included enabling removable signage, facilitating customization, and allowing service or replacement without removing the entire installation. Those functions were central to the invention’s stated objectives.

    Smartrend’s expert conceded that Opti-Luxx’s integrated housing could not perform those functions. It could not removably receive signage or allow easy customization. That concession was fatal.

    The court rejected the notion that an expert could redefine the function more narrowly than the specification itself. Where the patent clearly teaches what a claimed element is supposed to do, the doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase that requirement. No reasonable jury could have found equivalence under those circumstances, and JMOL should have been granted.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes this aspect of the decision sends a strong message: the doctrine of equivalents remains a narrow safety valve, not a tool for rewriting claims after the fact.

    Injunction Vacated

    Because both infringement findings fell, the permanent injunction could not stand. The Federal Circuit vacated it in full.

    Takeaways

    This decision offers several practical lessons. First, in design patents, descriptive language matters. Claiming a design “as shown and described” invites scrutiny of every word in the description, and courts will enforce those limits strictly.

    Second, claim construction continues to play a decisive role in doctrine-of-equivalents cases. Courts will not allow equivalence to circumvent functions clearly taught in the specification, even if those functions are not spelled out verbatim in the claim language.

    Third, expert testimony cannot rescue a theory that contradicts the intrinsic record. When the patent speaks clearly, that is the end of the matter.

    Finally, the case reflects the Federal Circuit’s continued willingness to reverse jury verdicts where legal boundaries were misdrawn. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, the opinion reinforces that juries decide facts, but courts decide what the patent actually covers.

    In short, Smartrend v. Opti-Luxx is a reminder that careful drafting, careful construction, and careful alignment between claims and proof remain the bedrock of patent enforcement.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 corrected through claim construction, notwithstanding the Patent Office’s refusal to issue a certificate of correction. The decision reinforces the narrow but vital role courts may play in preserving claim validity when intrinsic evidence leaves no reasonable doubt about the patentee’s intended meaning.

    The Patent and the Alleged Error

    Canatex owns U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, which claims a releasable connection device used in oil and gas well operations. The device consists of two parts that lock together during normal operations but may be separated if the downhole portion becomes stuck. The claims consistently describe a “first part” positioned further downhole and a “second part” closer to the surface.

    Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 included language describing a locking piston that permits a “releasable engagement profile” to expand radially and “release the connection profile of the second part.” As written, that phrase lacked an antecedent basis and, more importantly, conflicted with the mechanical logic of the device described throughout the patent. Only the first part is described as having a “connection profile,” while the second part includes the engagement components that grip and release that profile.

    The district court concluded that this defect rendered the claims indefinite. In its view, the repeated use of the disputed phrase across the claims and specification suggested intentional drafting rather than a clerical error, and the court declined to correct the language through construction.

    The Federal Circuit’s Framework for Judicial Correction

    On appeal, the Federal Circuit applied the longstanding but exacting standard for judicial claim correction. That standard traces back to the Supreme Court’s decision in I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U.S. 429 (1926), which held that courts may correct obvious claim errors when doing so merely gives effect to the meaning intended by the applicant and understood by the examiner.

    Modern Federal Circuit cases have distilled that principle into a demanding test. Judicial correction is appropriate only where:
    (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, as viewed by a skilled artisan;
    (2) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on the claims, specification, and prosecution history; and
    (3) the correction is limited to an obvious minor clerical or typographical error.

    The court emphasized that this doctrine is narrowly circumscribed to protect the public notice function of patent claims. Judicial correction determines what the claim has always meant, unlike PTO correction under 35 U.S.C. § 255, which operates prospectively and may alter claim scope.

    Error Evident on the Face of the Patent

    Applying the first prong, the panel found the error obvious. The claim language required release of a “connection profile,” yet nowhere introduced any such profile for the second part. Moreover, the notion that the second part’s engagement mechanism would release a component of the second part itself made no mechanical sense.

    The specification reinforced the conclusion. Figures consistently showed the connection profile on the first part, and one passage explicitly—but erroneously—referred to “connection profile 16 of second part 14,” even though the same paragraph and surrounding text identified that profile as belonging to the first part. To a skilled reader, this internal contradiction confirmed the presence of a drafting mistake rather than a substantive ambiguity.

    Only One Reasonable Correction

    The court also concluded that there was only one reasonable correction: replacing “second” with “first.” That change aligned the claims with the device’s structure, the specification’s descriptions, and the figures. Defendants’ proposed alternatives—such as inferring an undisclosed connection profile on the second part or altering other claim language to preserve the word “second”—were rejected as illogical or scope-altering.

    The court was particularly unpersuaded by arguments that the error was intentional because it appeared multiple times. Repetition, the panel explained, does not transform an obvious mistake into a deliberate choice, especially where the specification elsewhere makes the intended meaning unmistakable.

    PTO Denial Does Not Preclude Judicial Correction

    While the appeal was pending, Canatex sought a certificate of correction from the PTO. The Office denied the request, stating that the proposed correction would change claim scope. The Federal Circuit acknowledged the denial but found it irrelevant to the judicial correction analysis. The standards governing PTO correction and judicial construction are different, and the PTO’s refusal did not undermine the court’s conclusion that the claim language, properly understood, always meant “first part.”

    This aspect of the decision underscores an important practical point that Charles Gideon Korrell often emphasizes: the availability or denial of PTO correction does not foreclose judicial correction when intrinsic evidence compels a single interpretation. Courts remain the final arbiters of claim meaning in litigation.

    Distinguishing Chef America

    The panel carefully distinguished Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., where the court refused to correct claims that required heating dough “to” a temperature that would burn it. In Chef America, the prosecution history suggested that the language might have been intentional, and multiple plausible interpretations existed. By contrast, the Canatex patent contained no prosecution history suggesting intent to distinguish between first and second parts in the manner defendants proposed.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, Canatex narrows the reach of Chef America by reaffirming that hyperliteral claim construction gives way when intrinsic evidence leaves no room for reasonable debate about the patentee’s intent.

    Practical Implications

    The decision provides reassurance that patents will not be invalidated for indefiniteness where the error is mechanical rather than conceptual and where the intrinsic record speaks with one voice. At the same time, the court’s careful analysis preserves the high bar for judicial correction, ensuring that courts do not rewrite claims under the guise of interpretation.

    For litigants, Canatex highlights the importance of grounding correction arguments firmly in the claims, specification, and figures. For drafters, it is a reminder that even small drafting slips can invite expensive litigation, though not every mistake is fatal.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes the case strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public notice function of patents and avoiding forfeiture of valuable rights due to obvious clerical errors. Courts may correct, but only when correction is unavoidable.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 two familiar but increasingly consequential themes in post-Arthrex administrative patent law: first, that institution decisions remain firmly committed to the Director’s discretion and largely insulated from judicial review; and second, that attempts to recast disagreements over discretionary denials as constitutional or APA violations face steep, and often fatal, obstacles.

    At bottom, the court held that Motorola had no “clear and indisputable” right to relief, that mandamus could not be used as an end-run around 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and that neither due process nor the Administrative Procedure Act provided a viable hook for review. The decision underscores how fragile reliance interests can be when they rest on interim agency guidance, and how difficult it remains to obtain appellate review of institution-stage maneuvering at the USPTO.

    Background: From Institution to Deinstitution

    The dispute arose out of parallel proceedings. Stellar sued Motorola in district court in August 2023, asserting infringement of eight patents. While that litigation was ongoing, Motorola filed two waves of IPR petitions in mid- and late-2024. In each, Motorola submitted a Sotera-style stipulation agreeing not to pursue in district court any invalidity grounds that were raised, or reasonably could have been raised, in the IPRs.

    The PTAB initially instituted review on both sets of petitions. Stellar then sought Director Review. While those requests were pending, the policy backdrop shifted. In June 2022, then-Director Vidal had issued interim guidance instructing the Board not to deny institution under Fintiv where a petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. That guidance expressly stated it would remain in place “until further notice.”

    Following the change in presidential administrations, the Acting Director rescinded the Vidal Memorandum in February 2025. Chief Administrative Patent Judge Boalick subsequently issued instructions explaining that the rescission applied to any case where no final institution decision had issued or where rehearing or Director Review remained pending. Sotera stipulations would remain “highly relevant,” but no longer dispositive.

    Applying that framework, the Acting Director concluded that the Board had over-weighted Motorola’s stipulations and under-weighted the investment in the parallel district court litigation. She deinstituted the first set of IPRs and, after granting Director Review, deinstituted the second set as well. Motorola’s motions for reconsideration were denied. Motorola then turned to the Federal Circuit, seeking mandamus relief.

    The Mandamus Standard and the Barrier of § 314(d)

    The Federal Circuit began, as it often does in these cases, by emphasizing that mandamus is a “drastic” remedy reserved for “extraordinary situations.” To obtain relief, a petitioner must show a clear and indisputable right to relief, lack of adequate alternative means, and that issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

    Those requirements collide head-on with § 314(d), which makes institution decisions “final and nonappealable.” As the court reiterated, Congress committed institution determinations to the Director’s discretion, and mandamus is “ordinarily unavailable” to review such decisions, including discretionary denials under Fintiv and denials issued on reconsideration. While the court has acknowledged narrow exceptions for colorable constitutional claims or certain statutory challenges, it concluded that Motorola’s petition fit neither category.

    Due Process: No Property Interest in Interim Guidance

    Motorola’s primary constitutional argument was that the Vidal Memorandum created a protected property interest. According to Motorola, the guidance imposed substantive limits on agency discretion and entitled petitioners who filed Sotera stipulations to have their IPR petitions considered without risk of discretionary denial based on parallel litigation.

    The court rejected that argument decisively. Drawing on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, it explained that due process protections attach only where there is a legitimate claim of entitlement, not a unilateral expectation. Where a statute leaves a benefit to agency discretion, no protected property interest arises. Institution of IPR is quintessentially discretionary, a point reinforced by United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

    The Vidal Memorandum, the court explained, did not mandate any particular outcome. At most, it instructed the Board not to rely on certain criteria when exercising its discretion, and even that instruction was expressly temporary. That kind of interim procedural guidance did not transform a discretionary benefit into a nondiscretionary entitlement.

    The court also rejected Motorola’s attempt to frame its interest as a right to a particular process rather than a particular outcome. Citing Olim v. Wakinekona, the court reiterated that “process is not an end in itself,” and that an expectation of receiving a certain procedure does not, without more, constitute a protected property interest. Motorola’s reliance on the Vidal Memorandum, even if reasonable, was insufficient to establish a due process violation.

    Finally, the court found no unfair surprise. Motorola was on notice of Fintiv and the Board’s discretion when it filed its petitions, and the interim guidance expressly warned it could be modified at any time. Even reliance costs incurred in filing the petitions did not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation.

    The APA Arguments: An End-Run Denied

    Motorola also advanced two APA theories. First, it argued that rescinding the Vidal Memorandum amounted to a change in law or policy requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking. Second, it contended that the Acting Director acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately explain the rescission or account for reliance interests.

    The Federal Circuit declined to entertain either argument in the mandamus posture. As to notice and comment, the court noted that an APA challenge in federal district court remained available to Motorola. Mandamus, by contrast, could not be used to vacate specific institution decisions without colliding with § 314(d). Allowing such relief would amount to precisely the sort of end-run around the statute that prior precedent forbids.

    The court relied heavily on Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., which rejected a similar attempt to challenge Fintiv through an ultra vires theory. As in Mylan, Motorola’s arguments ultimately targeted the Director’s discretionary weighing of factors at institution, placing them outside the narrow category of reviewable issues.

    The court distinguished Apple Inc. v. Vidal, where it held that § 314(d) did not bar a standalone APA challenge to agency rulemaking practices. Here, Motorola sought relief tethered directly to the institution decisions themselves, placing the case beyond Apple’s reach.

    Practical Takeaways

    The denial of mandamus in In re Motorola Solutions reinforces several practical lessons for parties navigating parallel PTAB and district court proceedings.

    First, Sotera stipulations remain relevant, but they are no longer safe harbors. Even when interim guidance suggests a predictable outcome, that guidance can be rescinded and reweighted, and reliance on it carries real risk.

    Second, constitutional framing does not magically unlock appellate review. Absent a genuine deprivation of a protected property interest, due process arguments are unlikely to succeed in this context.

    Third, APA challenges to PTO policy shifts may need to proceed in district court and on a forward-looking basis. Attempting to bundle such challenges into mandamus petitions aimed at reversing specific institution decisions is unlikely to succeed.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, the decision underscores how institution strategy has become as much about administrative timing and policy volatility as about the merits of patentability. Charles Gideon Korrell believes that sophisticated petitioners must now assume that discretionary frameworks like Fintiv can change midstream and plan accordingly, including by carefully evaluating whether the PTAB forum is essential or merely advantageous. Charles Gideon Korrell also observes that the Federal Circuit continues to send a clear message: institution decisions are the Director’s domain, and the courthouse door remains largely closed at that stage.

    The Federal Circuit’s order leaves Motorola where § 314(d) has left many petitioners before it—without appellate recourse, but with a clearer understanding of the boundaries. In the chess match between district courts and the PTAB, the Director still controls the opening move, and mandamus remains a long shot.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs (article here). At the Court, the government pressed hard to reverse that conclusion. The challengers, for their part, framed the case as a straightforward dispute about statutory text and constitutional structure, with tariffs sitting firmly on Congress’s side of the ledger.

    What emerged at oral argument was not so much a debate about trade policy as a sustained interrogation of statutory verbs, historical practice, and institutional limits. The Justices appeared less interested in grand pronouncements about presidential power than in whether IEEPA’s language can plausibly be read to do the work the government demands of it.

    The Government’s Theory: “Regulate” Means “Tax”

    The government’s core argument at the Court was the same one that failed below: IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate … importation” necessarily includes the power to impose tariffs. According to the Solicitor General, tariffs are simply one regulatory tool among many, and Congress’s decision not to use the words “tariff” or “duty” should not be dispositive. On this view, the statute’s breadth is its feature, not a bug. Congress wanted flexibility in emergencies, and tariffs are a well-known lever in international economic relations.

    Several Justices immediately pressed on the implications of that reading. If “regulate” includes taxation, what limits remain? Could the President impose a 50 percent tariff tomorrow? One hundred percent? For decades? The government’s answers emphasized political checks and the President’s judgment, not textual limits. That line of response appeared to heighten, rather than alleviate, concern that the asserted power lacked any meaningful boundary.

    The government also leaned heavily on historical examples, particularly the Nixon-era surcharge upheld in Yoshida. But as at the Federal Circuit, the Justices seemed focused on the differences rather than the similarities. The Nixon surcharge was temporary, rate-limited, and enacted against a backdrop of explicit congressional engagement with balance-of-payments issues. The tariffs challenged here are none of those things.

    The Challengers’ Rebuttal: Verbs Matter

    Counsel for the private respondents returned repeatedly to a simple proposition: words matter, and Congress knows how to authorize taxes when it wants to. Across the U.S. Code, tariff statutes speak explicitly in terms of “duties” and “rates,” often with numerical ceilings and sunset provisions. IEEPA does not. It authorizes blocking, prohibiting, and regulating transactions involving foreign property interests, not raising revenue from Americans.

    That framing resonated with several members of the Court. Questions focused on whether there is any other example in federal law where a general authorization to “regulate” has been understood to permit taxation. The challengers’ answer was essentially no, and the government struggled to identify analogues beyond Yoshida, a case that itself warned against “unlimited” presidential tariff power.

    The respondents also emphasized that tariffs are not incidental regulatory side effects. They are taxes imposed on domestic importers, with predictable and substantial revenue consequences. Treating them as mere “regulation” would collapse a long-standing constitutional distinction between regulating commerce and exercising the taxing power.

    Major Questions Without Saying “Major Questions”

    Although the phrase “major questions doctrine” surfaced only intermittently, its logic permeated the argument. Several Justices asked whether Congress would really hide a power of this magnitude in a statute that never mentions tariffs, enacted in 1977 to rein in perceived abuses of emergency authority. The government’s position required the Court to accept that Congress silently transferred one of its most fundamental powers to the executive, with no express limits and no historical practice to support it.

    The challengers, by contrast, offered the Court an off-ramp. The case could be resolved on ordinary tools of statutory interpretation, without deciding whether such a delegation would be constitutional if it existed. If IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, the Court need not confront nondelegation head-on.

    That approach appeared attractive. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, the Court often prefers decisions that restore statutory boundaries rather than redraw constitutional ones. The questions suggested a similar instinct here.

    Remedies and Reviewability

    Another thread running through the argument concerned reviewability. The government contended that the President’s determination of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” is effectively unreviewable, placing the tariffs beyond meaningful judicial scrutiny. That claim drew skepticism. Several Justices asked how courts could fulfill their role if both the existence of an emergency and the scope of the resulting power were insulated from review.

    The respondents argued that accepting the government’s position would allow the President to impose taxes simply by declaring a long-standing condition, such as trade deficits, to be an emergency. That framing sharpened the separation-of-powers stakes without requiring the Court to issue a sweeping doctrinal statement.

    Reading the Tea Leaves

    No Justice tipped a hand explicitly, but the tenor of the questioning suggested discomfort with the government’s theory. The Court appeared divided less along ideological lines than along methodological ones, with multiple Justices converging on the view that IEEPA’s verbs cannot plausibly be stretched to cover taxation.

    At the same time, the Court seemed attentive to institutional posture. As in the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision, there was interest in resolving the case narrowly, by focusing on statutory text and history rather than on abstract claims about executive power in foreign affairs.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes that this dynamic makes the challengers’ position particularly strong. By offering the Court a path that respects congressional primacy over tariffs without destabilizing emergency-powers jurisprudence more broadly, the respondents aligned their argument with the Court’s recent pattern of decision-making. Charles Gideon Korrell also notes that the repeated focus on verbs—what “regulate” can and cannot mean—may prove decisive, especially for Justices wary of reading transformative powers into general language.

    What Comes Next

    If the Court affirms, the immediate effect will mirror the Federal Circuit’s holding: the President cannot rely on IEEPA to impose tariffs of this scope. The broader significance, however, would lie in reaffirming that trade taxation remains a legislative function unless Congress clearly says otherwise.

    If the Court reverses, it would mark a dramatic expansion of executive authority, effectively allowing the President to tax imports whenever an emergency is declared. The questions at argument suggest that at least some Justices are unwilling to take that step.

    However the Court rules, the argument underscored a recurring theme in recent Supreme Court cases: statutes enacted decades ago cannot be treated as all-purpose reservoirs of power for modern policy goals. As Charles Gideon Korrell observes, the tariff cases may ultimately be remembered less for their impact on trade than for what they say about the limits of executive creativity in statutory interpretation.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 is completely identical, a reference remains prior art, even when collaboration, confidentiality, and overlapping research histories muddy the factual waters.

    The case arose from inter partes reviews challenging Merck’s patents covering oral cladribine dosing regimens for treating multiple sclerosis. The patents claimed priority to 2004 filings and named four Merck inventors. Hopewell relied primarily on a published international patent application (“Bodor”) filed by Ivax researchers during the period when Ivax and Merck were collaborating on oral cladribine development. Merck argued that Bodor should not qualify as prior art because the disclosure reflected Merck’s own inventive work shared during the collaboration. The Board—and ultimately the Federal Circuit—was not persuaded.

    The Core Dispute: Collaboration Versus Inventive Identity

    At the heart of the appeal was whether Bodor qualified as prior art “by another” under pre-AIA §§ 102(a) and (e). Merck’s theory was straightforward: the relevant six-line dosing disclosure in Bodor originated from Merck’s confidential research and therefore could not constitute prior art against Merck’s later-filed patents. In other words, Merck contended that the disclosure was not truly “by another,” even though the named inventors differed.

    The Federal Circuit rejected that framing and reaffirmed a doctrinal line stretching back nearly sixty years. As the court explained, the statutory inquiry does not turn on collaboration, information flow, or even confidentiality obligations. It turns on inventive identity. Where the inventive entities are not completely identical, the reference is “by another,” unless the patentee proves that the specific portions relied upon reflect the collective work of the same inventive entity named on the challenged patent.

    This point bears emphasis. The court did not adopt a bright-line rule that authorship controls. Instead, it required proof that the disclosure itself embodies the joint invention of the same group of inventors. Any incongruity—whether inventors are added or subtracted—renders the reference prior art unless the patentee can bridge that gap with evidence.

    Reaffirming Land and Its Progeny

    Much of the opinion is devoted to situating the dispute within the Federal Circuit’s—and the CCPA’s—prior precedent. The court leaned heavily on In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966), which held that individual inventors and joint inventors are distinct inventive entities. A disclosure by one inventor is not automatically the work of a joint inventive entity, even if the subject matter overlaps.

    Merck attempted to limit Land to its unusual facts and instead relied on later cases such as Applied Materials v. Gemini Research and Allergan v. Apotex. The court was unpersuaded, explaining that those cases do not undermine Land’s core principle. Rather, they confirm that the key inquiry is whether the disclosure evidences knowledge by the same inventive entity—not whether there is some overlap in inventorship or a shared research lineage.

    As the opinion makes clear, later cases including Riverwood, EmeraChem, Google v. IPA Technologies, and Duncan Parking consistently require complete identity of inventive entities to exclude a reference from the prior art. Where a reference includes contributions from even one inventor not named on the challenged patent, it remains “by another.”

    Evidentiary Burdens and the Inventorship Trap

    Merck also argued that the Board improperly shifted the burden of persuasion by requiring proof that one of Merck’s inventors, Dr. De Luca, made a specific inventive contribution to Bodor’s six-line disclosure. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, emphasizing the distinction between the burden of persuasion (which remains with the petitioner) and the burden of production (which properly shifts to the patentee once the petitioner establishes a prima facie case).

    Here, Hopewell showed that Bodor was filed and published before Merck’s priority date and named different inventors. That showing shifted the burden to Merck to produce evidence that the disclosure reflected the work of the same inventive entity. The court agreed with the Board that Merck failed to meet that burden. Testimony from Merck witnesses could not identify any concrete inventive contribution by Dr. De Luca to the Bodor regimen, and documentary evidence such as meeting minutes and briefing documents fell short of establishing joint inventorship of the disclosure itself.

    The court also rejected Merck’s reliance on the “rule of reason” for corroboration, explaining that corroboration alone is not enough. The alleged contribution must be significant when measured against the full anticipating disclosure. Vague involvement or project-level participation does not suffice.

    Obviousness: Retreatment, Result-Effective Variables, and Expectation of Success

    After resolving the prior art issue, the court turned to obviousness and largely deferred to the Board’s fact-finding. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that Bodor, in combination with Stelmasiak, rendered the claimed regimens obvious.

    The Board credited expert testimony that multiple sclerosis is a chronic disease requiring retreatment, that Bodor’s defined cladribine-free periods logically imply retreatment, and that Stelmasiak expressly taught cyclic cladribine administration. The court rejected Merck’s attempt to characterize retreatment as speculative or conditional, noting that the claims did not require retreatment in every case—only that retreatment occur.

    The Federal Circuit also upheld the Board’s determination that dosing optimization was a result-effective variable. The prior art taught monitoring lymphocyte counts to balance efficacy and safety, and the claims imposed no requirement that dosing be determined by a particular calculation method. As a result, the Board reasonably concluded that a skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success.

    MPEP Reliance and Procedural Fairness

    Merck further argued that it was unfairly surprised by the Board’s application of the complete-identity rule, pointing to language in the MPEP suggesting that a disclosure by “at least one joint inventor” cannot be used as prior art. The court dismissed that argument, noting that the MPEP itself incorporates Land and expressly states that inventive entities differ when not all inventors are the same.

    More importantly, the court reiterated that the MPEP does not override binding precedent. To the extent the MPEP could be read to suggest otherwise, it does not control substantive law. There was no APA violation, and no remand was warranted.

    Why This Decision Matters

    This decision is a reminder that collaborative innovation carries structural patent risks—particularly under pre-AIA law. Joint research, shared data, and overlapping development efforts do not collapse inventive entities into one. Unless inventorship aligns precisely, earlier disclosures can and will be used as prior art, even where they arise from close collaboration and shared objectives.

    Charles Gideon Korrell has long observed that companies often underestimate the inventorship consequences of collaboration agreements, especially when R&D partners file independently. This case underscores the importance of proactive inventorship analysis, coordinated filing strategies, and—where possible—joint research agreements that anticipate how disclosures will be treated in later validity challenges.

    Charles Gideon Korrell also notes that the Federal Circuit’s reaffirmation of Land leaves little room for equitable arguments based on fairness or confidentiality. The statute asks who invented the subject matter, not who shared it first or under what expectations. For companies operating in highly collaborative technical environments, that distinction can be outcome-determinative.

    Finally, Charles Gideon Korrell believes the opinion highlights the sharp contrast between pre-AIA and post-AIA regimes. While the AIA introduced exceptions designed to soften the impact of secret prior art in collaborative settings, those provisions were unavailable to Merck here. As older patents continue to be litigated, similar disputes are likely to arise with equally unforgiving results.

    Takeaways

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Merck Serono v. Hopewell is doctrinally orthodox but practically sobering. A reference is “by another” unless the patentee can prove complete inventive identity for the relied-upon disclosure. Collaboration does not equal co-inventorship. Confidential sharing does not negate prior art status. And once a disclosure qualifies as prior art, well-supported obviousness challenges will be difficult to overcome.

    For companies and counsel alike, the lesson is clear: inventorship alignment matters just as much as novelty and nonobviousness. Ignore it at your peril.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 a recurring lesson: in patent law, synonyms are rarely your friend.

    At a high level, the appeal arose from a stipulated judgment of non-infringement following claim construction. The parties agreed that if the district court’s construction of the term “outer frame” stood, Edwards’ accused transcatheter aortic valve device could not infringe. The Federal Circuit affirmed that construction, holding that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer by consistently and interchangeably using “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” throughout the specification. That drafting choice ultimately proved fatal to the infringement case.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell has often noted, claim construction disputes are frequently less about clever advocacy and more about archaeology: courts dig through the specification looking for patterns, repetitions, and linguistic habits that reveal what the inventor actually described. Aortic Innovations is a textbook example of that dynamic.

    The Technology and the Asserted Claims

    The asserted patents relate to devices used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. These devices are delivered to the heart in a radially compressed state and then expanded in situ to replace a diseased aortic valve. As the Federal Circuit explained, the art recognizes two principal expansion mechanisms: balloon-expandable frames and self-expanding frames made from shape-memory materials.

    Aortic Innovations owned four related patents sharing a common specification. The claims at issue were directed to a “transcatheter valve” embodiment, not to the separate “endograft device” embodiments also disclosed in the specification. Claim 1 of the ’735 patent, which served as the focal point for claim construction, recited both an “outer frame” and an “inner frame,” with the inner frame engaging the prosthetic valve and the outer frame providing structural and sealing functions.

    The accused product, Edwards’ SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve, uses a single balloon-expandable frame. Thus, infringement hinged on whether the claimed “outer frame” could encompass a balloon-expandable structure, or whether it was limited to a self-expanding one.

    The District Court’s Construction

    Before the district court, Aortic argued that “outer frame” should receive its plain and ordinary meaning—essentially, a frame positioned radially outside another structure. Edwards countered that the specification consistently used “outer frame” to mean a self-expanding frame.

    The district court sided with Edwards, concluding that the patentee had redefined “outer frame” through consistent and interchangeable usage. The court construed “outer frame” to mean “a self-expanding frame,” while rejecting Edwards’ additional attempt to import a “generally hourglass shape” limitation.

    Critically, the court also construed “inner frame” as a “balloon-expandable frame,” a construction that neither party challenged on appeal. With those constructions in place, the parties stipulated to non-infringement.

    Federal Circuit Analysis: Implicit Lexicography

    On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo and affirmed. The opinion walks methodically through familiar claim construction principles, grounding its analysis in Phillips v. AWH, Thorner v. Sony, and a line of cases addressing implicit lexicography.

    The court reiterated that a patentee may redefine claim terms either explicitly or implicitly, but that the standard is “exacting.” Mere disclosure of embodiments is not enough. Instead, implied redefinition must be so clear that a skilled artisan would understand it as equivalent to an express definition.

    Here, the court found that standard satisfied.

    First, the specification repeatedly referred to the same structures using the terms “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame,” particularly in the discussion of Figures 9 and 20. That consistent interchangeability mirrored earlier cases such as Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., where repeated synonymous usage was held to be “akin to a definition equating the two.”

    Second, the summary of the invention described a transcatheter valve as including both a balloon-expandable frame and a self-expanding frame, without qualifying that feature as optional. Where the specification wanted to describe optional features, it explicitly did so. The absence of similar qualifying language for the self-expanding frame weighed heavily in the court’s analysis.

    Third, the court emphasized that claim 1 was directed to a dual-frame transcatheter valve. Given that the inner frame was balloon-expandable, the outer frame necessarily had to be the self-expanding one described throughout the specification.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell would put it, once the court accepted that the patent disclosed a binary system—one balloon-expandable frame and one self-expanding frame—the labels essentially snapped into place. There simply was no conceptual room left for a balloon-expandable “outer frame.”

    Judicial Estoppel: Too Late, Too Thin

    Aortic attempted a fallback argument based on judicial estoppel, asserting that Edwards had taken inconsistent positions before the PTAB and the district court. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument on forfeiture grounds, noting that Aortic had not adequately developed it below.

    The opinion underscores an important practical point: merely hinting at estoppel is not enough. Parties must squarely present and support such arguments in the district court if they hope to preserve them for appeal. The court saw no exceptional circumstances warranting deviation from that rule.

    Jurisdictional Cleanup

    The Federal Circuit also dismissed the appeal as to one of the four asserted patents after noting that the PTO had cancelled the relevant claims during the pendency of the appeal. Citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, the court concluded that there was no longer a live case or controversy as to that patent.

    Drafting Lessons: When Good Writing Goes Bad

    The most enduring significance of Aortic Innovations lies not in its doctrinal novelty, but in its drafting lesson. The opinion reinforces how stylistic choices that improve readability can quietly narrow claim scope.

    The accompanying commentary highlights this tension particularly well. In ordinary expository writing, authors are trained to avoid repetition and vary word choice. In patent specifications, however, that instinct can backfire. Consistent synonym usage can morph into implicit lexicography, especially when the specification never discloses a counterexample. patently-o

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes this case neatly illustrates why patent drafting is less like literature and more like contract engineering. Each descriptive choice carries legal consequences, and courts will treat repeated equivalence as intentional definition rather than casual phrasing.

    The Federal Circuit did not fault Aortic for failing to include an explicit definition section. Instead, it relied on the overall pattern of disclosure. Once every embodiment of an “outer frame” is also described as self-expanding, the court will infer that self-expansion is an essential characteristic of the claimed invention.

    Practical Takeaways

    Several practical lessons emerge from this decision:

    First, if a feature is meant to be optional, say so clearly—and then show it. Disclosing alternative embodiments where the feature is absent can be just as important as including boilerplate “in some embodiments” language.

    Second, be cautious with synonyms in claim-relevant portions of the specification. If two terms are not intended to be coextensive, do not use them interchangeably, even for stylistic variety.

    Third, remember that summary sections matter. Courts often treat the summary as a high-level definition of “the invention,” and unqualified statements there can shape claim scope decisively.

    Finally, litigators should take note of how quickly claim construction can drive a case to summary resolution. Here, once the construction issue was decided, infringement fell away almost immediately.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell has observed in other contexts, many patent disputes are effectively won or lost long before litigation begins—at the drafting stage, where every word quietly sets the boundaries of future enforcement.

    Conclusion

    Aortic Innovations v. Edwards Lifesciences reinforces a familiar but unforgiving principle: precision beats elegance in patent drafting. The Federal Circuit’s willingness to find implicit lexicography based on consistent interchangeable usage should prompt renewed discipline in how specifications are written, reviewed, and prosecuted.

    For practitioners, the case is less about TAVR technology than about linguistic discipline. And for those drafting patents in crowded, high-stakes technical fields, it is yet another reminder that the line between description and definition is thinner than it looks.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 committed reversible error by failing to meaningfully consider evidence of copying as an objective indicium of nonobviousness. The decision offers a clear reminder that secondary considerations remain a mandatory part of the obviousness analysis in inter partes review, even where the Board may be skeptical of parallel district court records.

    Background and Procedural Posture

    The case arose from IPR proceedings challenging claims 1, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, directed to rule-based network threat detection in encrypted communications. Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review in late 2021, and the Board instituted review with a three-judge panel. Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies later filed substantively identical petitions and were joined to the proceeding.

    After institution, Centripetal learned that one of the administrative patent judges on the original panel owned between $1,001 and $15,000 in Cisco stock. Although Cisco was not yet a party at institution, Centripetal ultimately moved to recuse the panel and vacate the institution decision. The challenged APJ later withdrew, as did another panel member, and a reconstituted panel denied the motion for vacatur. The Board went on to issue a final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.

    On appeal, Centripetal raised two broad categories of arguments: first, that the belated recusal tainted the proceedings and violated due process; and second, that the Board’s obviousness analysis was legally deficient.

    Jurisdiction and the Shadow of Section 314(d)

    Before reaching the merits, the Federal Circuit addressed its jurisdiction in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The court reaffirmed that while institution decisions themselves are largely unreviewable, challenges grounded in constitutional due process or ethics rules applicable beyond institution fall outside the bar of Section 314(d). The recusal challenge did not turn on the interpretation of IPR institution statutes, but rather on executive-branch ethics regulations and alleged due process violations. As such, the court exercised jurisdiction, consistent with prior cases addressing conflicts of interest in PTAB proceedings.

    Timeliness and the Failure of the Recusal Challenge

    The court first affirmed the Board’s conclusion that Centripetal’s recusal motion was untimely. Drawing on analogous Article III recusal principles, the court emphasized that even absent a formal deadline, parties must raise conflicts promptly once discovered. Here, Centripetal had access to public financial disclosures months before filing its motion and waited until after receiving unfavorable rulings on other issues.

    The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that allowing a late-stage recusal motion under these circumstances would be inequitable, particularly given the PTAB’s compressed statutory timelines. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, timeliness arguments in administrative adjudication often carry more weight than litigants expect, especially where delay appears strategic rather than unavoidable.

    Executive Branch Ethics Rules and De Minimis Interests

    On the merits, the Federal Circuit rejected Centripetal’s argument that the APJ’s stock ownership violated executive-branch ethics rules. The court carefully walked through the regulatory framework under 18 U.S.C. § 208 and the Office of Government Ethics’ implementing regulations.

    Critically, 5 C.F.R. § 2640.202 expressly permits participation in matters involving specific parties where an employee’s ownership of publicly traded securities does not exceed $15,000. The court rejected the argument that this provision merely provides a criminal safe harbor, concluding instead that it affirmatively defines when participation is permissible. Because the APJ’s holdings never exceeded the regulatory threshold, no ethics violation occurred.

    The court also dismissed reliance on appearance-of-impropriety regulations addressing personal or business relationships, explaining that those provisions do not apply to an employee’s own financial interests. Charles Gideon Korrell believes this portion of the decision underscores how narrowly courts will construe ethics regulations when Congress and OGE have spoken with specificity.

    Due Process Arguments Rejected

    Centripetal also argued that due process required holding APJs to the same disqualification standards as Article III judges. The Federal Circuit declined to adopt that position, emphasizing that APJs are executive-branch employees subject to a distinct statutory and regulatory regime. While acknowledging the quasi-adjudicatory nature of PTAB proceedings, the court found no constitutional requirement to import the zero-dollar disqualification rule of 28 U.S.C. § 455 into administrative adjudication.

    The court further rejected Centripetal’s argument that recent PTO guidance directing more conservative panel assignments should apply retroactively. The guidance expressly disclaimed retroactive application and was adopted pursuant to the Director’s policy-setting authority. As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, agencies remain free to tighten internal procedures prospectively without transforming prior lawful conduct into due process violations.

    Harmless Error and the Absence of Vacatur

    Even assuming error, the court explained that recusal does not automatically require vacatur. Applying the familiar three-factor test from Liljeberg, the court concluded that any alleged conflict posed minimal risk of injustice to the parties, little risk of injustice in other cases, and no serious threat to public confidence. The challenged APJ recused before final merits adjudication, and the final written decision was issued by a panel including judges who had never sat with him.

    Accordingly, recusal concerns did not justify vacating the Board’s decision.

    The Real Error: Failure to Consider Copying Evidence

    Despite rejecting Centripetal’s procedural challenges, the Federal Circuit ultimately vacated the Board’s final written decision for a different reason. The court held that the Board erred by failing to consider record evidence of copying offered by Centripetal as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness.

    Centripetal had submitted specific evidence from related district court litigation, including testimony that Cisco executives met with Centripetal and reviewed its patented technology, internal Cisco communications discussing Centripetal’s patents, and expert testimony opining that Cisco plausibly copied the claimed invention. While the Board noted that the district court judgment had been vacated, it declined to analyze the evidence, stating that it was not in a position to weigh the full litigation record.

    The Federal Circuit found this approach legally deficient. Secondary considerations cannot be dismissed simply because they arise from parallel litigation or because the Board did not hear live testimony. Where evidence of copying is specifically placed into the IPR record, the Board must evaluate it and assign appropriate weight. Citing Stratoflex and Knoll, the court reiterated that objective indicia are not optional and must be considered in every obviousness determination.

    Charles Gideon Korrell observes that this portion of the decision reinforces a recurring theme in Federal Circuit jurisprudence: the Board may reject secondary considerations, but it cannot ignore them.

    Remand and Practical Implications

    The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s final written decision and remanded for further proceedings. Notably, the appellees conceded at oral argument that reassignment to a new panel would be appropriate on remand, and the court suggested that the Director consider doing so.

    For practitioners, the decision offers several takeaways. First, recusal challenges must be raised promptly and grounded in the applicable regulatory framework, not generalized notions of fairness. Second, executive-branch ethics rules provide clear safe harbors that courts will enforce as written. Third, and most importantly, objective indicia of nonobviousness remain a powerful check on hindsight-driven obviousness analyses in IPR proceedings.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, even where a patent owner loses the procedural battle, careful development of secondary considerations can still change the outcome on appeal.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

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

    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 the scope of earlier-issued patents in the same family, even where those earlier patents were already granted and never amended.

    The decision is especially notable for its careful treatment of prosecution disclaimer across time, its distinction between examiner disagreement and applicant acquiescence, and its application of those principles to claim terms that appear, at least facially, to be broader than the disclaimed language. As Charles Gideon Korrell has observed in other contexts, this opinion underscores that prosecution arguments can be as dangerous as claim amendments, particularly in large patent families with overlapping claim language.

    Background and the Asserted Patents

    Barrette owns four related patents directed to fencing and railing assemblies that use sliding, pivoting connectors to attach pickets to rails. The patents share a common specification and trace back to a common parent application. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,413,332; 8,413,965; 9,551,164; and 9,963,905. The claims generally recite connectors having “bosses,” “projections,” or similar protruding structures that engage holes in the pickets, allowing the pickets to pivot and slide relative to the rails.

    The accused products, Fortress’s Athens Residential fences, use connectors that employ non-integral fasteners. After claim construction, Barrette stipulated that it could not prove infringement under the district court’s construction, while Fortress stipulated that it could not prove indefiniteness. That procedural posture set the stage for a clean appeal on claim construction and indefiniteness.

    Claim Construction and the “Boss” Terms

    The central dispute on appeal concerned the meaning of “boss,” “projection,” and related terms. The district court construed these terms as limited to integral structures, and further concluded that they were fastener-less. Barrette challenged both aspects of that construction.

    The Federal Circuit agreed with Barrette on one point but not the other. First, the court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the specification clearly and unmistakably disclaimed bosses that use fasteners. Relying on Phillips v. AWH Corp., the court reiterated that patents often describe multiple advantages over the prior art and that claims should not automatically be limited to structures that achieve every disclosed advantage. Here, although the specification emphasized fast installation as one benefit of the invention, it also emphasized improved racking ability, which did not inherently require fastener-less connections. The intrinsic record did not support importing a fastener-less limitation into the claims.

    That conclusion, however, did not save Barrette’s infringement case.

    Prosecution Disclaimer and Integral Structures

    The decisive issue was prosecution disclaimer arising from statements made during prosecution of a later continuation application that issued as the ’075 patent. During that prosecution, the examiner rejected claims over the Sherstad reference, which disclosed a pivot pin assembly. In response, Barrette argued that Sherstad failed to disclose a “slip-together connection with the claimed integral boss,” distinguishing Sherstad’s use of a discrete pin member from Barrette’s claimed structure.

    The Federal Circuit held that this argument constituted a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of non-integral bosses. Importantly, the court rejected Barrette’s attempt to characterize the argument as ambiguous or ineffective simply because the examiner ultimately maintained the rejection and Barrette later canceled the claims. The focus of disclaimer analysis, the court emphasized, is what the applicant said, not whether the argument persuaded the examiner or was strictly necessary to secure allowance.

    The court distinguished Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp. and Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, where examiner disagreement and applicant acquiescence rendered earlier narrowing arguments ambiguous. Here, the examiner did not disagree with Barrette’s characterization of its own claims. Rather, the examiner disagreed with Barrette’s characterization of the prior art. Nothing in the prosecution history suggested that Barrette’s description of its own invention was mistaken or withdrawn.

    As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, this distinction is critical. Examiner disagreement with claim scope may neutralize a disclaimer, but examiner disagreement with an applicant’s reading of the prior art does not.

    Temporal Reach of Disclaimer Across the Family

    Barrette also argued that statements made during prosecution of the later-filed ’075 patent could not limit the scope of earlier-issued patents such as the ’332 and ’965 patents. The Federal Circuit squarely rejected that argument, citing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. for the proposition that statements made during prosecution of related patents may be considered in construing common claim terms, regardless of whether the statements pre- or post-date issuance of the patent at issue.

    This aspect of the opinion reinforces a recurring theme in Federal Circuit jurisprudence: patent families rise and fall together when claim language and specifications are shared. Strategic arguments in one application can echo backward in time.

    Extending the Disclaimer to Related Terms

    Barrette attempted to limit the damage by arguing that even if “boss” was limited to integral structures, other claim terms—such as “projection,” “nub,” and “series of axles”—should retain broader meanings. The court was unpersuaded.

    As to “projection,” the court found forfeiture. Barrette had repeatedly argued before the district court that “boss” and “projection” were commensurate in scope, even characterizing “projection” limitations as “boss” terms in its Markman submissions. Having taken that position below, Barrette could not reverse course on appeal.

    With respect to “nub” and “series of axles,” the court acknowledged that these terms were narrower than “boss,” but concluded that narrowing did not help Barrette. If the broader term was limited to integral structures, then the narrower terms necessarily were as well. Thus, even assuming some error in the district court’s interchangeable-use analysis, the outcome remained the same.

    Indefiniteness: Sliding and “Causes”

    On cross-appeal, Fortress challenged the district court’s rejection of its indefiniteness arguments. Fortress contended that the “sliding” terms were functional and ambiguous, and that the claims failed to specify parameters such as force, friction, or degree of motion.

    The Federal Circuit disagreed. Applying Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. and Sonix Technology Co. v. Publications International, Ltd., the court emphasized that definiteness requires reasonable certainty, not mathematical precision. The claims and specification provided sufficient guidance by describing how pivoting of the pickets causes the connector to slide along the rail, and by illustrating those interactions in multiple figures.

    Similarly, the court rejected Fortress’s argument that the term “causes” was indefinite because not every act of pivoting necessarily resulted in sliding. The court held that Barrette’s explanation during prosecution merely clarified the causal relationship in context, and that a skilled artisan could ascertain the scope of the term with reasonable certainty.

    Practical Takeaways

    The Federal Circuit’s decision delivers several practical lessons.

    First, prosecution disclaimer remains a potent doctrine, and it applies with full force to arguments, not just amendments. Second, disclaimers can propagate across an entire patent family, even retroactively affecting earlier-issued patents. Third, examiner disagreement only matters if it clearly signals that the applicant’s narrowing characterization was incorrect and accepted as such by the applicant.

    Charles Gideon Korrell believes that this case will encourage applicants to think more carefully about whether an argument is truly worth making in a continuation application. In many cases, the safer course may be to amend claims explicitly or to draft continuation claims that clearly delineate different scopes, rather than relying on argumentative distinctions that may later become shackles.

    In the end, Barrette lost not because its invention lacked merit, but because its own words during prosecution narrowed its claims beyond repair. As patent families continue to grow larger and more complex, this decision serves as a sharp reminder: every prosecution argument is a potential legacy.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell