Tag: patent law
-
Seagen v. Daiichi Sankyo: Federal Circuit Reverses $41M Verdict on Written Description
The Federal Circuit’s December 2, 2025 decision in Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., No. 23-2424, continues a noticeable and consequential trend: the court’s growing willingness to overturn jury verdicts on written description and enablement grounds as a matter of law. In reversing a $41 million verdict and vacating findings of willful infringement, the panel…
-
In re Gesture Technology: IPR Estoppel Stops at the PTAB Door, Not Ex Parte Reexamination
The Federal Circuit’s December 1, 2025 decision in In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Appeal No. 2025-1075, delivers a clean and consequential message on two recurring pressure points in post-grant practice: the reach of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), and the Patent Office’s authority to continue adjudicating validity in ex…
-
Akamai v. MediaPointe: “Best” and “Optimal” Still Demand Objective Boundaries
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., No. 2024-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), reinforces a familiar but still unforgiving rule of patent law: terms of degree such as “best” and “optimal” require objective boundaries anchored in the intrinsic record, not intuition, common sense, or counsel’s assurances that “it all tends…
-
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…
-
Duke v. Sandoz: Federal Circuit Invalidates Genus Claim for Lack of Written Description
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…
-
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,…
-
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…
-
In re Motorola Solutions: Mandamus Cannot Bypass the § 314(d) Bar on IPR Institution Review
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…
-
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…
-
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…