Tag: expert
-
Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific: Federal Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict on Anticipation and the Meaning of “Fiber”
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case Nos. 2024-2062 and 2024-2063 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2026), reverses a patent-infringement judgment involving drug-eluting coronary stents and illustrates how a jury verdict cannot survive when the asserted distinctions from the prior art are absent from…
-
Intellectual Pixels v. Sony: Federal Circuit Clarifies What Remains Open After a PTAB Remand
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case No. 2024-2174 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2026), clarifies when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may reconsider factual issues after an appellate remand. Affirming the invalidation of server-based image-rendering patent claims, the court held that the mandate rule binds the Board…
-
Smartrend v. Opti-Luxx: When Claim Construction Undoes Patent Infringement Verdicts
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,…
-
Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC: When Expert Testimony Cannot Carry the Infringement Verdict
On September 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a sweeping reversal of a significant Eastern District of Texas jury verdict in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, vacating a $166 million damages award and reversing the denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement. The decision underscores a recurring theme in…
-
Jiaxing Super Lighting v. CH Lighting: EcoFactor’s Shadow Over Damages Testimony Grows
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) serves up a triple helping of reversible error: (1) improper exclusion of key on-sale bar evidence, (2) a reaffirmed jury verdict on validity and infringement of a shock-prevention patent, and (3) a…
-
EcoFactor v. Google: En Banc Federal Circuit Tightens Daubert Review of Patent Damages Experts
In a closely watched en banc decision issued on May 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a new trial on damages in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2023-1101. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert damages testimony that was not based on sufficient…
-
AMP Plus v. DMF: A Closer Look at Obviousness Analysis
On March 19, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling that AMP Plus, doing business as ELCO Lighting, failed to prove claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266 was unpatentable as obvious.…
-
Patent Litigation and Expert Testimony: Lessons from Trudell v. D R Burton
The recent decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit highlights significant issues in intellectual property law, particularly in the realm of patent litigation. This case, which revolves around the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,588, serves as a critical…
-
BEARBOX LLC v. LANCIUM LLC: A Legal Examination of Inventorship and State Law Preemption in Patent Law
In the recent case of BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed pivotal issues concerning inventorship claims and the preemption of state law by federal patent statutes. This case underscores the intricate balance between state and federal jurisdictions in intellectual property disputes. Case Background Austin Storms,…