Tag: patent law
-
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…
-
Acorda v. Alkermes: When Alternative Theories Shut the Federal Circuit Door
The Federal Circuit’s July 2025 decision in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, No. 2023-2374 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2025), is the latest reminder that most “non-patent patent cases” will not make it past the courthouse steps on Madison Place. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Acorda’s challenge to an international arbitration…
-
IGT v. Zynga: Institution Unreviewability Swallows Interference Estoppel (and Obviousness Stands)
The Federal Circuit’s decision in IGT v. Zynga Inc. delivers a one-two punch that will resonate in AIA practice: (1) the court affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness ruling; and (2) it refused to review the agency’s decision not to apply interference estoppel at institution. Read together, the opinion underscores just how muscular § 314(d)’s unreviewability has…
-
Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC: Prosecution History Estoppel Bars Equivalents Infringement
In its July 18, 2025 opinion in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, the Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million jury verdict in favor of Colibri, holding that Colibri’s infringement theory under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The case centered on a now-expired patent for a method of…
-
Shockwave Medical v. Cardiovascular Systems: Federal Circuit Clarifies Use of AAPA and Reverses PTAB on Claim 5
In a significant decision issued on July 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Nos. 2023-1864, 2023-1940, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that most of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,956,371 were unpatentable as obvious—but reversed the Board’s lone finding of non-obviousness, holding that claim…
-
Janssen v. Teva: Federal Circuit Affirms Validity of Paliperidone Palmitate Dosing Regimen Patent
In a significant ruling for pharmaceutical patent litigation, the Federal Circuit in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Nos. 25-1228, 25-1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025), affirmed the district court’s determination that U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (“the ’906 patent”)—which claims specific dosing regimens for long-acting injectable formulations of the antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate—is not…
-
Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.: Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Verdict on All Asserted Claims
In a resounding victory for Cisco Systems, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that Cisco’s Unified Computing System (“UCS”) does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, held by Egenera, Inc. The decision, issued on July 7, 2025, capped nearly a decade of litigation over Egenera’s patented “virtual processing area network” technology. The ruling…
-
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC: “Consisting Essentially Of” Precludes Other Active Ingredients
In a significant reversal for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC the Federal Circuit on June 30, 2025, held that the Board erred in its construction of the transitional claim phrase “consisting essentially of” as used in Eye Therapies, LLC’s U.S.…
-
Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc.: Federal Circuit Orders New Trial on Infringement and Damages Due to Unanimity Violation and Improper Evidence
The Federal Circuit’s June 16, 2025, decision in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2022-1904, 2022-1925, vacates a $300 million damages judgment in a high-stakes standard-essential patent (SEP) case and mandates a new trial on both infringement and damages. The court found that the Eastern District of Texas violated Apple’s constitutional right to…
-
Ancora v. Roku: When Patent Licenses Become Evidence of Nonobviousness
In the June 16, 2025 decision of Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two inter partes review (IPR) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941—owned by Ancora Technologies, Inc.—to be unpatentable as obvious. While the Federal Circuit affirmed…