The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in the litigation between Columbia University and Gen Digital is notable not only for its treatment of software patent eligibility, but also for what it says about potential expansions in the geographic limits of patent damages, especially in the context of software patents. As discussed in our prior blog, the … Continue Reading
After over a decade of litigating, winning multiple appeals and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and finally earning a $185 million jury verdict against cybersecurity giant Gen Digital Inc. that operates the Norton antivirus brand, Columbia University saw a massive setback with last week’s Federal Circuit opinion. The opinion touched on several topics in modern … Continue Reading
On March 11, 2026, USPTO Director Squires issued a memorandum that sets forth additional criteria for IPR and PGR petitioners and patent owners to consider in arguing whether petitions should be granted. Two of the new criteria focus on ties of patented technology to the United States. A third criterion considers the size of a … Continue Reading
As the 2026 Winter Olympics captivate audiences, one sport in particular―curling―stands out as the perfect metaphor for the challenge of prosecuting AI inventions before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Both arenas demand foresight, adaptability, and strategic thinking, whether it’s guiding a stone across the ice or shepherding an AI patent application through evolving … Continue Reading
In a precedential opinion analyzing eligibility of software and web-based patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. The Court examined key issues in patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly for web … Continue Reading
Readers will recall that the Deputy Commissioner for Patents issued a memorandum on evaluating patent claims for subject matter eligibility in August, which we blogged about previously. The August 2025 Memorandum noted that a patent application “does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement [to the functioning of a computer or to another technology … Continue Reading
As readers may recall, in February 2024, the USPTO issued guidance on inventorship in AI-assisted inventions, which we wrote about here. On November 26, 2025, the USPTO rescinded that guidance and replaced it with new guidance. By way of background, the February 2024 Guidance analyzed the naming of inventors for AI-assisted inventions using the Pannu … Continue Reading
There have been hundreds of summary discretionary denial decisions from the Acting Director regarding inter partes review and post-grant review. We blogged on these decisions here, here, here, here, and here. On October 17, 2025, newly appointed Director Squires issued an open letter and memorandum to the public and to the Patent Trial and Appeal … Continue Reading
You couldn’t sleep. You recently worked through the night on your bench experiments, even when the security guard told you to go home, painstakingly perfecting the process to align with your company’s plans for a chemical manufacturer to scale your product. As the morning light peeked across your lab bench, your overcaffeinated fingers clicked the … Continue Reading
On August 4, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents issued a memorandum to Examiners on evaluation of claims in software-implemented inventions for subject matter eligibility under Section 101. While the memorandum does not fundamentally change the USPTO’s guidance published in the MPEP, the memorandum does provide useful clues as to how the USPTO and the Examining … Continue Reading
Since the iRhythm IPRs on which we blogged recently, there have been two more (actually, many more) decisions that are leaving petitioners scratching their heads. In Dabico, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied an IPR petition because of “settled expectations,” the same rationale as in iRhythm. The Acting Director went further and criticized the petitioner … Continue Reading
In a set of astonishing identical Director Review decisions, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied five IPR petitions whose proceedings would have concluded over seven months before the underlying patent infringement suit would have gone to trial. The Acting Director reasoned that the petitioner waited too long to file its IPR petitions because, even though … Continue Reading
Monetary awards in trade secrets cases continue to grab headlines in 2025. As reported in this recent blog post, a Boston jury awarded a medical device company $452M for theft of trade secrets by a competitor, later reduced to $59.4 in exchange for a permanent injunction. Last month, an Arkansas jury found Walmart liable for … Continue Reading
The patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) allows the USPTO Director to deny institution of an IPR when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In IPR practice, relying on prior art that already had been before the PTO is perfectly acceptable. Under the 2020 decision in … Continue Reading
In Insulet Corporation v. EOFlow Co., Ltd. et al., after a month-long jury trial, a federal court in Boston dropped the hammer on an insulin patch pump producer for misappropriating the trade secrets of its competitor. The jury found that EOFlow, a South Korean company, its U.S. subsidiary, and several individual defendants, including former employees … Continue Reading
In an effort to offer customers better service, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been modernizing various aspects of their operations. One result of the modernization and efficiency efforts relates to expedited patent issue dates. On April 15th, the Patent Office announced that ― starting on May 13th, 2025 ― it will be … Continue Reading
As provided by statute at 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) may challenge the claims of a patent “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Does this provision permit IPR challenges based on Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) ― art identified in the … Continue Reading
If you’re a patent practitioner who works with innovation related to artificial intelligence, you’ll want to consider the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp. This decision is the first to explicitly consider patent eligibility in the context of the use of artificial intelligence. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s … Continue Reading
Recent actions from the USPTO have engendered a great deal of discussion among the bar practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 28, 2025, acting Director Stewart rescinded former Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Board. On March 24, 2025, Chief Judge Boalick … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit has long held that “the general rule” of patent infringement damages law is “a patentee may not claim, as its own damages, the lost profits of a related company.” More than 15 years ago, one patent owner argued that an exception to this general rule should be when a subsidiary’s profits “flow … Continue Reading
Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc. raises the question whether lost profit damages for patent infringement can extend to profits related to unpatented products sold with a patented product. As with many legal issues, including the lost profits issue I addressed in my recent post, the answer to the question is “sometimes.” In Wash World, … Continue Reading
In the UK, intellectual property (IP) infringement claims and other disputes in which IP is a major concern can be brought in either the High Court or in many cases the specialist Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). Based at the Rolls Building in central London, the IPEC has a more streamlined procedure than the High … Continue Reading
Lost profit damages are notoriously difficult to recover in patent infringement cases. Lost profits damages are recovered in only a small percentage of cases that go to trial. Among the challenges in recovering lost profits under the Panduit test are that the patent owner must prove the absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives (Panduit factor 2) … Continue Reading
In a November 6, 2024 opinion in Certain Computing Devices Utilizing Indexed Search Systems and Components Thereof, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) held that statements, disclaimers, and positions taken during the prosecution of a later patent apply to the construction and interpretation of the same term in an earlier related patent. Using this standard, … Continue Reading
