Technology & Information Law Blog by Charles Gideon Korrell

Tag: patent law

  • Qualcomm v. Apple: Express Reliance on Applicant Admitted Prior Art Bars IPR Ground

    Qualcomm v. Apple: Express Reliance on Applicant Admitted Prior Art Bars IPR Ground

    In Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) post-remand decision, holding that the Board erred in allowing Apple’s inter partes review (IPR) ground to proceed based on a misinterpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The ruling clarifies the limits on how applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) can be used in IPR petitions and underscores that the “basis” of a ground must consist solely of patents or printed publications.

    Background

    Apple filed two IPR petitions challenging claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674, which relates to integrated circuits using multiple power supplies. Each petition included two obviousness grounds under § 103. At issue was “Ground 2,” which relied on AAPA (specifically, Figure 1 and text of the ’674 patent) in view of a published patent application (Majcherczak) and, for some claims, the Matthews patent.

    PTAB originally found Apple’s use of AAPA permissible, treating it as prior art under § 311(b). Qualcomm appealed, and in Qualcomm I, the Federal Circuit held that AAPA is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” and remanded to the Board to determine whether AAPA improperly formed the “basis” of the petition.

    On remand, the Board, applying PTO guidance, adopted an “in combination” rule: AAPA used alongside at least one qualifying patent or printed publication does not form the basis of a ground under § 311(b). It upheld Ground 2 and invalidated the challenged claims.

    The Federal Circuit’s Decision

    Judge Reyna, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed. The court held that:

    1. Reviewability Not Barred by § 314(d): Apple argued that Qualcomm’s challenge was a barred appeal of the PTAB’s institution decision. The court disagreed, finding Qualcomm’s arguments targeted the final written decision, not the institution itself. Citing SAS Inst. v. Iancu and Cuozzo, the court emphasized that § 314(d) does not bar judicial review of questions about how the agency conducts an IPR once it is instituted.
    2. PTAB Misinterpreted § 311(b): The court found the “in combination” rule—allowing AAPA to escape classification as a “basis” when paired with other art—contravened the plain meaning of the statute. AAPA is not a qualifying patent or publication and cannot form any part of the basis of an IPR ground. Reliance on AAPA to supply missing claim limitations may be permissible for obviousness analysis, but not if it constitutes part of the “basis” for the challenge.
    3. Express Statements by Petitioner Are Binding: The court found that Apple’s petitions explicitly labeled Ground 2 as based on “Applicants [sic] Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of” other prior art, thereby violating § 311(b). Because petitioners are masters of their petitions, express characterizations like this are binding. The Board erred in disregarding these express admissions and allowing the ground to proceed.

    Takeaways

    • Express language matters. Petitioners must carefully draft IPR petitions and avoid designating AAPA as part of the “basis” under § 311(b), even if combined with qualifying references.
    • AAPA’s role is limited. While it may be used to demonstrate the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill, AAPA cannot form any part of the legal “basis” for an unpatentability ground under § 311(b).
    • Board discretion is not absolute. Even under the America Invents Act’s streamlined IPR process, statutory boundaries like § 311(b) remain enforceable and reviewable.

    This decision is a key reminder for IPR practitioners: precision in petition drafting is essential, and the statutory language must be honored, even when PTAB or PTO guidance suggests more flexible interpretations.

  • Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.: Applying Generic Machine Learning to a New Environment Is Not Enough for Patent Eligibility

    Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.: Applying Generic Machine Learning to a New Environment Is Not Enough for Patent Eligibility

    In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit on § 101 grounds, holding that Recentive’s asserted patents were directed to ineligible subject matter. The court concluded that the patents merely applied well-known machine learning techniques to the new context of scheduling live events and generating television network maps, without disclosing any specific improvements to the machine learning models themselves.

    Background: Scheduling and Broadcasting with ML

    Recentive sued Fox Corp., alleging infringement of four patents that described the use of machine learning to optimize the scheduling of live events and dynamically generate television broadcast “network maps.” These network maps determined which programs would air in which local markets at specific times, a particularly complex task in the context of live sports broadcasts like NFL games.

    Historically, networks made these scheduling decisions manually, based on general market heuristics or static planning tools. Recentive claimed to have pioneered a method that applied machine learning to this domain, using models trained on historical data—such as ticket sales, regional viewer preferences, and event logistics—to create optimized schedules and automatically update them in response to real-time data. According to Recentive, Fox deployed similar technology in its broadcast operations without a license, including tools that tailored game broadcasts for maximum ratings across different affiliates and time slots.

    The four asserted patents fell into two categories:

    • Machine Learning Training Patents ('367 and ‘960 patents): Directed to generating optimized event schedules using machine learning models trained on historical event data.
    • Network Map Patents ('811 and '957 patents): Concerned with using machine learning to optimize network broadcast schedules and dynamically update network maps in response to changing conditions.

    While the patents invoked modern ML techniques—such as neural networks, support vector machines, and gradient-boosted forests—they required only “any suitable machine learning technique” and did not claim new models, architectures, or training methods.

    The Alice Framework

    Applying the Alice two-step test, the court evaluated whether the patents were directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.

    Step One: Directed to an Abstract Idea

    At step one, the court found that the patents were directed to the abstract idea of applying generic machine learning methods to new domains (event scheduling and network mapping). Key to the court’s analysis:

    • Generic ML Use: The court emphasized that Recentive’s claims merely described using conventional ML techniques to solve known scheduling and broadcast optimization problems.
    • Field of Use Limitation: Applying ML to a previously “unsophisticated” domain like television scheduling was not enough. As the court reiterated, restricting an abstract idea to a specific environment does not render it eligible.
    • No Technological Improvement: Although the patents touted “real-time” and “dynamic” scheduling, the court found these features to be inherent to ML itself and lacking any claimed improvement to the underlying technology.

    The court distinguished the claims from those in Enfish, McRO, and Koninklijke, where specific improvements to computer functionality or data processing methods were claimed. Instead, it likened the case to SAP Am. v. InvestPic and Electric Power Group, where courts rejected abstract data-processing claims lacking technical specificity.

    Step Two: No Inventive Concept

    At step two, the court found that the claims lacked any “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application:

    • Generic computing environment: The patents were implemented on general-purpose computing hardware.
    • No technical solution: Even features like real-time updating and iterative training were inherent aspects of machine learning, not technological innovations.
    • Efficiency gains irrelevant: The court reiterated that merely achieving results faster or more efficiently using a computer does not make a claim patent-eligible (Content Extraction, Customedia, Trinity).

    A Clear Line on ML and § 101

    In holding that “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments” are ineligible, the panel clarified how existing § 101 jurisprudence applies to ML-related patents:

    • To survive Alice, claims must go beyond stating the use of ML in a novel context. They must describe how the ML models themselves are improved or implemented in a technically meaningful way.
    • This decision aligns with recent decisions like SAP Am. v. InvestPic, Electric Power Group, and Stanford, which stress that invoking known tools on new datasets is not enough.

    Litigation Strategy: The Algorithm That Wasn’t Claimed

    A particularly revealing moment came during oral argument when Recentive’s counsel admitted that they deliberately avoided claiming a new ML algorithm. The rationale? Fear of falling into another § 101 trap: the prohibition on claiming natural laws or mathematical formulas.

    This litigation strategy underscores the dilemma facing patent drafters in AI and ML. Claims that are too abstract fail at Alice step one; claims that are too technical risk being characterized as mathematical laws or unpatentable subject matter at step two. In seeking to thread that needle, Recentive ended up with patents that described no technical implementation at all—just an invocation of ML on a new dataset.

    This signals a growing tension in ML patent prosecution: balancing § 101 eligibility with disclosure sufficiency, without accidentally triggering disqualification under the guise of abstraction or mathematical formalism.

    Takeaway for Practitioners

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Recentive sends a clear and cautionary message to those drafting or litigating AI-related patents:

    • ML Must Be More Than a Buzzword: Simply applying a standard ML model—without claiming how the model is improved or adapted—will almost certainly fail under § 101.
    • Implementation Details Matter: Vague references to “dynamically optimized schedules” or “real-time adjustment” will not suffice without concrete technical means to achieve those goals.
    • Disclosure Strategy Is Crucial: Avoiding algorithmic detail to sidestep one § 101 problem may backfire by triggering another. Patent claims must walk a fine line: detailed enough to show inventive application, but not so mathematical as to seem like an unpatentable law of nature.
    • Field-of-Use Limits Won’t Rescue Abstract Claims: No matter how novel the application, courts will disregard “do it with AI” claims that offer no technological advance in the computing or modeling process itself.
    • Expect Closer Scrutiny in Litigation: Plaintiffs asserting AI-driven patents will need to show not just commercial similarity but also a clearly delineated inventive step in how ML is implemented. As Recentive illustrates, merely identifying an infringing product that uses AI will not save a claim that lacks specificity in what the invention actually improves.

    Machine learning may revolutionize many industries, but for now, it does not exempt patentees from the requirements of § 101. To claim such innovations successfully, applicants must do more than dress up abstract ideas in predictive analytics—they must show how their inventions improve the underlying technology itself.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart: “Sterile” Label in UK Document Found to Anticipate U.S. “Sterilized” Patent Claims

    Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart: “Sterile” Label in UK Document Found to Anticipate U.S. “Sterilized” Patent Claims

    In Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart, No. 2023-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that all challenged claims of Sage’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,642 and 10,688,067 were unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The ruling centered on whether a UK public assessment report (PAR) describing a product as “sterile” met the U.S. claim limitations requiring a “sterilized” composition. The court held that a skilled artisan would understand the regulatory meaning of “sterile” in the UK to include the concept of “sterilized” under U.S. patent law, thereby rendering the claims anticipated.

    Key Background

    Sage’s patents relate to sterilized chlorhexidine gluconate compositions used in antiseptic applicators. The PTAB instituted IPRs against multiple claims of these patents based on three grounds: (1) anticipation by the ChloraPrep PAR; (2) obviousness over the PAR and general knowledge; and (3) obviousness over the PAR in view of a U.S. publication (Degala).

    At issue was whether the PAR—an official regulatory document issued by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)—disclosed a “sterilized” composition within the meaning of the claims.

    Key Prior Art and the “Sterile” vs. “Sterilized” Debate

    The PAR described a ChloraPrep product containing chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol for pre-operative skin disinfection, stating that the product is “sterile” and “sterile unless the seal is broken.” Importantly, the UK’s regulatory standard BS EN 556-1 defines “sterile” as having a sterility assurance level (SAL) of ≤10⁻⁶.

    The Board interpreted “sterilized” as requiring “a suitable sterilization process such that sterility can be validated,” and determined that a skilled artisan would equate the PAR’s “sterile” designation with this definition.

    Sage argued that this was a misreading, contending that even experts at the time misunderstood the ChloraPrep product to be sterile when it was not. Sage’s expert, Dr. Rutala, testified that the state of the art assumed ChloraPrep’s active antiseptic solution was not sterilized. However, the Board credited the testimony of BD’s expert, Dr. Dabbah, who explained that a skilled artisan with at least four years of experience in sterilization would understand that the UK labeling requirements effectively guaranteed terminal sterilization compliant with BS EN 556-1.

    The Federal Circuit’s Analysis

    The court upheld the PTAB’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard:

    • Regulatory Understanding: The court found it “implausible” that a skilled artisan would be unaware of UK regulatory standards that governed the PAR’s use of the term “sterile.”
    • SAL and Composition Claims: The court affirmed that the PAR, read in light of BS EN 556-1, disclosed a sterilized composition with an SAL in the claimed range (10⁻³ to 10⁻⁹).
    • Dependent Claims: The court also upheld the Board’s findings that limitations such as a “sterilized colorant” were met, based on the overall characterization of the product as “sterile.”
    • Procedural Arguments: The court rejected Sage’s argument that the Board exceeded the scope of the IPR or improperly relied on extrinsic evidence. Expert testimony and references like Degala and Chiang were permissible to help interpret what the PAR disclosed to a skilled artisan.
    • Enablement: The court found no error in the Board’s reliance on other references to confirm that the methods of sterilization disclosed in the PAR were enabled.

    Takeaway

    This case underscores the importance of considering the regulatory context and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill when interpreting foreign public documents during validity challenges. Here, the Federal Circuit signaled that official regulatory language, such as “sterile,” can carry weight under U.S. patent law when understood to meet the technical requirements of a claim—even when arising from a different jurisdiction.

    Moreover, this opinion reinforces that a patent challenger can use a combination of prior art and expert testimony to establish that a foreign document anticipates U.S. patent claims, especially when such a document reflects regulatory compliance with rigorous standards like BS EN 556-1.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Azurity Pharmaceuticals v. Alkem Labs: Prosecution Disclaimer and “Consisting Of” Language Bar Infringement Finding

    Azurity Pharmaceuticals v. Alkem Labs: Prosecution Disclaimer and “Consisting Of” Language Bar Infringement Finding

    In Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., No. 23-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product did not infringe Azurity’s U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948 (“’948 patent”) due to a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer of propylene glycol.

    Background

    Azurity’s ’948 patent claims drinkable, non-sterile liquid formulations of vancomycin, tailored to pediatric and geriatric patients. The asserted claims used a “consisting of” transition, listing specific ingredients but omitting propylene glycol. During prosecution, Azurity’s predecessor application had been repeatedly rejected over Palepu (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0101147), which disclosed vancomycin formulations including propylene glycol.

    To overcome these rejections, Azurity amended its claims to include the “consisting of” transition and repeatedly emphasized the absence of propylene glycol. The examiner’s notice of allowance explicitly cited this absence as the basis for allowance. Although a later sibling application (not in the same line of priority) included a statement purporting to reserve the right to claim propylene glycol, the Federal Circuit found this late-stage statement irrelevant and ineffective to undo the earlier disclaimer.

    Key Legal Holdings

    1. Clear Prosecution Disclaimer
      The court held that Azurity “clearly and unmistakably” disclaimed propylene glycol to distinguish its claims from Palepu, citing Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 10 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The disclaimer applied broadly across all claim limitations due to Azurity’s sweeping and repeated statements.
    2. Effect of “Consisting Of” Language
      Use of the closed “consisting of” transition further limited the claims to exclude unlisted components like propylene glycol. Citing Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the court emphasized that such transitions typically exclude any additional components.
    3. Ineffectiveness of Later Statement in Related Prosecution
      A disclaimer made in a parent application binds later continuations (Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)), but a later, unilateral attempt to retract that disclaimer in a grand-nephew application (filed in parallel) did not negate the clear disclaimer made during the original prosecution.
    4. Interpretation of Pretrial Stipulation
      Azurity’s reliance on a discovery stipulation—that flavoring agents may contain or omit propylene glycol—did not undo the prosecution disclaimer. The court, citing Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015), found the stipulation did not equate to a concession on infringement or override the prosecution record.
    5. Non-Infringement Finding Supported by ANDA Content
      Since Alkem’s ANDA product contains propylene glycol, and the patented formulation disclaimed that compound, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of non-infringement. The case underscores the principle, restated from Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014), that an ANDA’s defined composition controls the infringement analysis under Hatch-Waxman.

    Takeaways

    This decision reinforces the enduring power of prosecution disclaimer, especially when paired with the “consisting of” claim transition. Practitioners should be mindful that:

    • Statements made to overcome prior art will likely limit claim scope—even if arguably broader than necessary.
    • Subsequent clarifying or contradictory statements in sibling applications cannot override earlier disclaimers.
    • Closed claim language (“consisting of”) combined with clear disclaimer can preclude infringement where additional components are present.

    Careful claim drafting and prosecution strategy remain essential tools in preserving enforceable patent scope.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • In re Forest: No Patent Term, No Provisional Rights

    In re Forest: No Patent Term, No Provisional Rights

    In In re Forest, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal involving a patent application that would have issued after its statutory 20-year term expired. The court held that the applicant lacked any legally cognizable interest in obtaining such a patent, because it would confer neither enforceable rights under § 154(a) nor provisional rights under § 154(d). The decision reinforces the principle that expired patents are just that—expired—and cannot serve as vehicles for recovering damages through provisional rights alone.

    While the court did not invoke the term, this case is a clear echo of the now-extinct “submarine patent” strategy that once plagued the U.S. patent system. Before the 1995 amendments to the Patent Act, U.S. patents had a term of 17 years from issuance. Applicants could delay prosecution and keep their applications hidden for years, only to surface with claims that covered industries that had developed in the meantime—hence the “submarine” metaphor. When those patents finally issued, they delivered a full 17-year term of enforceability, often wreaking havoc on unsuspecting companies.

    Congress addressed this problem in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by shifting patent term to 20 years from the earliest claimed priority date for applications filed after June 8, 1995. This change curtailed the submarine threat by tying term to a fixed date, regardless of delays in prosecution.

    Forest appears to be an attempted end-run around those reforms. The application at issue claimed priority back to 1995, meaning any resulting patent would have expired in 2015. Forest filed the application in 2016, long after that expiration. Aware that no exclusionary rights could issue, he argued instead for provisional rights under § 154(d)—the right to a reasonable royalty for infringing uses during the period between publication and issuance.

    The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, holding that provisional rights are only granted “in addition to” exclusionary rights and cannot be awarded in isolation. Drawing on the plain meaning and structure of § 154, the court emphasized that provisional rights are inherently temporary and only exist to bridge the gap between publication and enforceable rights. If no enforceable rights can issue, there’s no basis for provisional rights either.

    The court supported its interpretation with several statutory construction principles and Supreme Court precedents. Citing King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), the court noted that words must be understood in context and within the overall statutory scheme. It also leaned on Institut Pasteur v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013), which held that the PTO may not grant rights beyond the statutory term, and Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), which cautions against interpreting statutes in ways that contradict foundational legal principles absent a clear statement from Congress.

    The court also reviewed the legislative history underlying § 154(d), finding nothing to support the idea that provisional rights could extend beyond the patent term. On the contrary, statements from stakeholders made clear that the purpose of provisional rights was to compensate for time lost during examination—not to revive expired claims.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Patent rights are time-limited by statute and the Constitution. A patent application that would issue after its 20-year term has no enforceable rights and therefore cannot support an appeal.
    • Provisional rights under § 154(d) are not freestanding. They are temporary, pre-issuance rights that depend on the eventual issuance of a valid patent with enforceable term.
    • Attempts to revive “submarine-like” strategies will fail. Forest is a reminder that creative attempts to recover value from expired applications are unlikely to succeed under the modern patent regime.

    In the end, In re Forest underscores that the system Congress designed to eliminate submarines is still watertight. Provisional rights are not a loophole—they are a limited remedy tethered to valid, timely patents. Practitioners should be vigilant in managing prosecution timelines and wary of investing in patents long after their statutory clock has run out.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Wash World v. Belanger: CAFC Reins in Claim Construction and Remits Damages Based on Improper Convoyed Sales

    Wash World v. Belanger: CAFC Reins in Claim Construction and Remits Damages Based on Improper Convoyed Sales

    The Federal Circuit issued a split ruling in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., affirming the district court’s judgment of infringement but vacating the lost profits damages award due to improper inclusion of convoyed sales.

    The case presents key takeaways on claim construction waiver, convoyed sales damages, and preserving post-trial remedies, with important implications for managing patent risks and damages strategies.

    Background

    Belanger Inc., holder of U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041 covering a lighted spray arm in an automated car wash system, accused Wash World’s “Razor EDGE” system of infringement. Wash World responded with a declaratory judgment action and was found liable for infringement of independent claim 7 and several dependent claims. A jury awarded over $10 million in damages, primarily as lost profits.

    Claim Construction: Know Your Limits on Appeal

    Wash World appealed on the basis that the district court improperly failed to construe three key claim terms:

    • “Outer cushioning sleeve”
    • “Predefined wash area”
    • “Dependingly mounted from”

    The Federal Circuit, applying a strict forfeiture rule, found that Wash World had waived its proposed constructions on the first two terms by not clearly presenting them to the district court.

    Wash World’s pivot from its trial construction (“thick sleeve of extruded foam plastic”) to a new appellate construction (“soft and resilient…can spring back into shape”) was deemed materially different and untimely. Similarly, its appellate interpretation of “predefined wash area” as requiring invariant dimensions and pre-wash definition was new and forfeited.

    Only the “dependingly mounted from” issue was properly preserved. The court affirmed that both direct and indirect mounting satisfied the claim, rejecting Wash World’s noninfringement theory based on the use of an intermediate trolley.

    This opinion underscores the importance of framing claim construction disputes early and clearly. Implicit arguments or vague references to functional limitations may be insufficient. The Federal Circuit will enforce waiver unless “exceptional circumstances” are shown.

    Damages: The Limits of Convoyed Sales

    While Wash World’s claim construction arguments were mostly waived, it succeeded on appeal in challenging a significant portion of the jury’s $9.8 million lost profits award — approximately $2.58 million tied to convoyed (i.e., unpatented) components sold alongside the patented system.

    The legal standard for convoyed sales is exacting. Under Rite-Hite v. Kelley Co., to recover lost profits on unpatented components sold with a patented item, a patentee must prove that the items together constitute a functional unit — that is, components that are physically and functionally interrelated in such a way that they operate together as part of the patented invention.

    What the patentee cannot do is claim lost profits on items that are merely sold together as a matter of customer convenience or commercial packaging. This is a critical line — and one Belanger crossed, according to the Federal Circuit.

    At trial, Belanger’s damages expert, Dr. McDuff, offered lost profit calculations based on sales of the entire car wash system, including dryers and other components not covered by the asserted patent claims. His per-unit lost profit number — $53,866 — incorporated profits from those unpatented components. Critically, the jury awarded damages that exactly matched his bottom-line estimate, making it clear that convoyed sales were part of the jury’s calculation.

    Belanger attempted to defend the inclusion by arguing that the products were “typically” sold as a package and that dryers were installed in roughly 75% of Belanger’s IBA systems. But the Federal Circuit found that this testimony — emphasizing sales custom rather than functional integration — fell short of establishing the required functional relationship. As the court put it, “selling the products together as a package is the exact sort of ‘matter of convenience or business advantage’ that does not, in and of itself, give rise to damages liability.”

    The Federal Circuit was also unmoved by Belanger’s argument that the general verdict form precluded remittitur. Although the jury did not specify how much of its award was attributable to convoyed sales, Belanger had repeatedly told the district court that the jury adopted Dr. McDuff’s model — a point that judicially estopped it from arguing otherwise on appeal.

    In light of the above, the court ordered remittitur of $2,577,848 and directed the district court to enter a reduced damages award.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • In re Riggs: Clarification of 102(e) Prior Art:

    In re Riggs: Clarification of 102(e) Prior Art:

    In its opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in In re Riggs, No. 22-1945, clarifying the framework for determining whether a published U.S. patent application can rely on the filing date of a provisional application to qualify as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

    This decision not only refines the application of Dynamic Drinkware and Amgen, but also serves as a warning: it’s not enough for one claim of a reference to be supported by a provisional application. The actual disclosure relied on for anticipation or obviousness must also be supported.

    Background

    The applicants in Riggs sought coverage for a modular logistics system integrating databases, purchasing, scheduling, tracking, and financial modules across multiple carriers and shippers. The examiner rejected several claims as anticipated or obvious over a 2002 published application by Lettich (which claimed priority to a 2000 provisional).

    The Board initially sided with the applicants but, following a request for rehearing by the examiner and a long procedural history (including district court and prior Federal Circuit proceedings), reversed course—holding Lettich was valid prior art. The key question became: could Lettich’s publication date be backdated to its provisional filing?

    Issue Preclusion: Board’s Authority to Hear Examiner’s Rehearing Request

    Appellants first challenged whether the PTAB acted “ultra vires” in reconsidering its original decision at the examiner’s request. The Federal Circuit rejected this challenge based on issue preclusion. In an earlier appeal (Odyssey Logistics, 959 F.3d 1104), the same party had litigated the Board’s jurisdiction. Because the issues were fully litigated and decided, the Court held the appellants were estopped from relitigating them.

    Backdating: What It Takes to Backdate a Reference to Its Provisional

    The crux of the appeal centered on whether Lettich’s published application could claim the benefit of its 2000 provisional and thus qualify as § 102(e) prior art.

    The Board had applied a bright-line rule: if at least one claim in the non-provisional is supported by the provisional, then the entire disclosure of the published application gets the benefit of the provisional filing date.

    The Federal Circuit rejected that.

    “To claim priority to the provisional filing date, the portion of the application relied on by the examiner as prior art must be supported by the provisional application.”

    In other words, it’s not enough that one claim is supported—the actual paragraphs or features cited in the prior art rejection must themselves be traceable to the provisional. The Court emphasized that written description support under § 112 must exist both for (1) at least one claim, and (2) the specific disclosures relied on in the rejection.

    Practical Implications

    For patent practitioners and in-house teams:

    • When asserting prior art based on a published U.S. application, verify that the actual subject matter relied on in your rejection has § 112 support in the provisional—not just the claims.
    • Ensure provisional applications contain robust disclosures that can support downstream claim language and specification content.
    • In litigation and IPRs, this decision may offer new ammunition to challenge a reference’s entitlement to its provisional date.

    For business leaders:

    • This ruling reinforces the importance of drafting high-quality provisional applications from the outset. Skimping on detail can weaken your company’s applications or defenses.
    • Companies assessing FTO or IP validity should look carefully at the actual disclosure timeline—not just the priority claim.

    Looking Ahead

    In re Riggs sends a clear message that precision in provisional drafting matters more than ever, and that reliance on PTAB rehearings—once thought settled—can reemerge years later under the right procedural framework.

    This area of law remains dynamic, particularly for companies working in logistics, SaaS, and modular system design, where provisional filings are common and often relied upon for competitive edge.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Maquet v. Abiomed: Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer

    Maquet v. Abiomed: Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer

    On March 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment of non-infringement and remanded the case for further proceedings in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. (No. 23-2045). The opinion focuses on the claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 (the “’783 patent”), specifically the proper application of the prosecution disclaimer doctrine and the relevance of related patents’ histories in claim construction.

    Background and Claims at Issue

    Maquet’s ’783 patent relates to intravascular blood pump systems that include integrated guide mechanisms for positioning the pump inside the circulatory system. At issue were three claim terms from claims 1 and 24:

    1. “Guide mechanism comprising a lumen” (claim 1)
    2. “Guide mechanism is configured to allow for a guide wire to slideably advance therealong” (claim 1)
    3. “Guide wire does not pass through the rotor hub or the catheter” (claim 24)

    The district court construed each of these to include negative limitations—e.g., that the lumen is not distal to the cannula or that the guide wire does not pass through the free space between rotor blades—based on prosecution history from related patents. Maquet stipulated to non-infringement under these constructions and appealed.

    Federal Circuit Analysis

    1. Prosecution Disclaimer Must Involve Similar Claim Language

    The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s construction of the term “guide mechanism comprising a lumen”, holding that the court erred in relying on amendments to different claim language in a parent patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,789,238). The court reiterated that prosecution disclaimer generally does not apply when the claim term at issue in the descendant patent uses different language from that in the ancestor patent.

    The court cited:

    • Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001): emphasizing that the prosecution history of a related patent is only relevant when it addresses a limitation in common.
    • Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013): reaffirming that prosecution disclaimer does not apply when there is no parity between claim limitations.
    • Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Lab’ys, Inc., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006): noting that different claim language generally precludes the application of disclaimer.

    2. Silence in Response to Examiner Statements Is Not a Disavowal

    On the issue of whether the guide wire could pass through the space between rotor blades, the court reversed the district court’s reliance on statements in the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,888,728 (a great-great-grandparent of the ’783 patent). The district court had found a disclaimer based on the applicant’s failure to contest an examiner’s notice of allowance distinguishing prior art.

    The Federal Circuit rejected that approach, citing:

    • Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005): holding that an applicant’s silence in response to an examiner’s characterization does not constitute a clear and unmistakable disavowal.
    • Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016): emphasizing the high standard required to find prosecution disclaimer based solely on prosecution history—namely, a “clear and unmistakable” disavowal.
    • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc): confirming that claim terms are to be given their ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic record, absent a clear disclaimer.

    The court also held that general statements Maquet made during an inter partes review proceeding were too vague to constitute a disclaimer under Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

    3. Specification Did Not Require Limitation on Guide Wire Path

    Finally, the court rejected Abiomed’s argument that the patent specification limited the guide wire’s path. The court found no “manifest exclusion or restriction” in the specification that would justify reading in a limitation that the guide wire cannot pass through the rotor blade area, citing:

    • Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004): noting that limiting a claim based on the specification is only appropriate when the patentee clearly expresses such a limitation.

    Conclusion

    The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of non-infringement as to the ’783 patent and remanded the case for further proceedings under corrected claim constructions. The court left undisturbed the separate judgment of non-infringement as to U.S. Patent No. 9,789,238, which Maquet did not challenge on appeal.

    The opinion provides guidance on the limits of prosecution disclaimer and underscores the need for clear, consistent claim language across related patents when relying on prosecution history to construe claims.

    Post by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Actavis v. United States: When Patent Litigation Meets Tax Law

    Actavis v. United States: When Patent Litigation Meets Tax Law

    In a significant March 2025 opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, addressing a complex intersection of patent litigation, FDA regulatory processes, and the tax code. While the case originated in the context of Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation, its reasoning may offer guidance for companies in other IP-intensive industries, particularly those grappling with the tax treatment of litigation expenses.

    The Issue: Ordinary Business Deduction or Capital Expenditure?

    The core legal question was whether Actavis could deduct the legal expenses it incurred in defending against multiple Hatch-Waxman lawsuits as “ordinary and necessary business expenses” under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code—or whether those costs must be capitalized under § 263(a) as expenses that facilitate the creation of a capital asset (i.e., FDA approval to market a drug).

    The IRS had classified the expenses as capital expenditures, arguing that they facilitated the creation of intangible assets (FDA approvals). Actavis, on the other hand, maintained that the litigation was a cost of doing business, defending against patent claims—not a step in acquiring FDA approval.

    The Federal Circuit’s Holding

    The court sided with Actavis, holding that the litigation expenses were deductible as ordinary business expenses. Two key rationales stand out:

    1. Origin of the Claim Test: The court applied the “origin of the claim” doctrine, concluding that the expenses stemmed from defending against patent infringement lawsuits—not from acquiring FDA approvals. The origin was legal defense, not asset acquisition.
    2. No Facilitation of Capital Asset: Even under the IRS’s preferred framework (26 C.F.R. § 1.263(a)-4), the court found that the litigation did not “facilitate” the acquisition of a capital asset. The lawsuits neither determined whether FDA approval would be granted nor were they a required step in the FDA process.

    The court emphasized that patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act and FDA approval are separate processes. While the litigation might affect when FDA approval becomes effective (due to the 30-month stay), it does not influence whether approval is granted. Only the FDA decides that.

    Key Takeaways for Technology Companies

    Though the case involves pharmaceutical patents, the implications may extend more broadly to any business incurring litigation costs in defense of IP rights. Here’s why:

    • Deductibility of Legal Costs in IP Defense: If your company is sued for patent infringement (regardless of industry), and those lawsuits do not directly result in acquiring or creating an asset, this decision supports deducting legal expenses as ordinary business costs.
    • Litigation vs. Asset Acquisition: The decision draws a critical line between defending against claims (deductible) and activities that directly create capital assets (which must be capitalized). Companies should assess whether legal costs are tied to defense or to proactive steps in asset acquisition.
    • Creation vs. Defense of IP: It’s important to note that while litigation expenses are often deductible, the costs of acquiring or developing a patent—including attorney fees for drafting, filing, and prosecuting a patent application—must typically be capitalized and amortized over the patent’s useful life. The distinction in Actavis lies in the nature of the litigation: defending against infringement is a cost of doing business, not of acquiring the asset.
    • Not Just for Pharma: While the court did not explicitly extend the holding beyond the pharmaceutical context, its reasoning—particularly under the “origin of the claim” test—could apply equally to companies with non-pharmaceutical patents defending against infringement claims.

    For example, a tech company facing patent litigation over software functionality would likely be in a similar position to Actavis: defending existing operations rather than acquiring a new capital asset.

    Final Thoughts

    Actavis underscores the importance of how legal expenditures are categorized for tax purposes. The decision provides welcome clarity for businesses engaged in patent litigation, reinforcing that defense costs are generally deductible—even when those suits relate to regulatory or commercialization processes.

    The ruling also promotes tax parity: if patent owners (the plaintiffs) can deduct their legal expenses, defendants (like Actavis) should be treated the same. For IP-heavy industries, this decision is a valuable precedent that could reduce taxable income and increase after-tax cash flow during costly legal battles.

    Posted by Charles Gideon Korrell

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/interesting-case-when-patent-litigation-meets-tax-law-korrell-t0d7c

  • AMP Plus v. DMF: A Closer Look at Obviousness Analysis

    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. This case highlights the rigorous evidentiary requirements for demonstrating obviousness in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and serves as a cautionary tale for petitioners relying on implicit reasoning rather than explicit proof.

    Obviousness and the Challenge to Claim 22

    ELCO argued that claim 22 of DMF’s patent should be invalidated as obvious in view of two prior art references: Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007. The key limitation in dispute—referred to as “Limitation M”—requires that the compact recessed lighting system be “coupled to electricity from an electrical system of a building.”

    PTAB found that ELCO failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have modified the marine lighting systems disclosed in Imtra 2011 to be installed in a building. The Federal Circuit affirmed this conclusion, emphasizing that an obviousness argument must be supported by more than assumptions or conclusory statements.

    The Federal Circuit’s Analysis of ELCO’s Argument

    ELCO’s IPR petition asserted that “wire connections between the fixture and the power source can be made in a variety of ways” and that the use of junction boxes in lighting systems was well known. However, PTAB determined—and the Federal Circuit agreed—that ELCO never specifically addressed how the prior art actually disclosed or suggested adapting the marine lighting system for a building’s electrical infrastructure.

    The court underscored several key deficiencies in ELCO’s argument:

    1. Lack of Direct Evidence – The cited portions of the Imtra 2011 brochure and supporting expert testimony never explicitly discussed installation in a building’s electrical system. Instead, the reference described marine applications, leaving a gap in ELCO’s argument about how or why a POSITA would have been motivated to adapt it for use in buildings.
    2. Failure to Establish Motivation to Combine – While ELCO asserted that modifying a marine lighting system for a building would have been an obvious design choice, PTAB found—and the Federal Circuit agreed—that ELCO did not provide sufficient evidence of a motivation to make that change. As the Supreme Court held in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), an obviousness analysis must consider whether a POSITA would have been motivated to make the modification, not just whether they could have.
    3. Improper Reliance on Expert Testimony – ELCO relied on its expert’s declaration to argue that a POSITA would recognize the adaptability of marine lighting systems to buildings. However, the Federal Circuit found that the cited paragraphs of the expert report did not actually support this assertion, as they failed to address the specific limitation at issue—installation in a building’s electrical system.
    4. The Importance of Addressing Every Claim Limitation – The court reaffirmed the principle that every limitation in a claim must be shown to be disclosed or suggested by the prior art. Because ELCO failed to adequately address Limitation M, its obviousness argument fell short, regardless of the strength of its other arguments.

    Lessons for Patent Practitioners and Petitioners

    This decision reinforces a fundamental rule in patent litigation and IPR proceedings: Obviousness cannot be assumed; it must be demonstrated with clear, persuasive evidence. Key takeaways include:

    • IPR petitions must explicitly address each claim limitation. Courts and PTAB will not fill in evidentiary gaps left by a petitioner’s argument.
    • Obviousness requires more than a general assertion of industry knowledge. Petitioners must show both how the prior art discloses a limitation and why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify it in the claimed manner.
    • Expert testimony must be specific and directly tied to claim limitations. Vague or conclusory statements from experts will not suffice to establish obviousness.

    Conclusion

    The Federal Circuit’s ruling in AMP Plus v. DMF underscores the challenges in proving obviousness in IPR proceedings. While ELCO had strong prior art references, its failure to explicitly demonstrate how a POSITA would have modified marine lighting for building use proved fatal to its case. For future patent challengers, this case serves as a reminder that thorough, well-supported arguments are critical in overcoming the presumption of patent validity.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell