Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Patents

  • October 16, 2025

    Brita’s ITC Patent Loss Affirmed By Federal Circuit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 15  affirmed a finding by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that certain claims of a water filter patent held by Brita LP were invalid for lack of written description and lack of enablement because the patent does not disclose the full scope of filter material covered by its claims that do not meet a claimed performance metric.

  • October 16, 2025

    Federal Circuit Rejects Rehearing Bid From Database Patent Holder In IPR Appeal

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a technology company’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, rejecting its arguments that a panel used the wrong standard of review to find that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in claim construction and incorrectly rejected reply evidence from Google LLC in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings it brought.

  • October 16, 2025

    Federal Circuit: Judge Wrong To Find Prior PTAB Ruling Precluded Issues

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Wisconsin federal judge was wrong to apply issue preclusion based on prior findings from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when granting summary judgment in a patent infringement dispute over eyeglass lens patents, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Oct. 15; the panel said the PTAB findings relied on by the judge came under a different standard of proof than that required for district courts.

  • October 15, 2025

    Federal Circuit Rejects Rehearing Bid For Dumbbell Abstractness Finding

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 14 denied a company’s request for either panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, leaving in place its August finding that a Utah federal judge was wrong to hold that a patent was directed to an abstract idea by conflating a “rather simple mechanical invention” for stacking dumbbells with the kind of computerized automation that is often unpatentable as abstract.

  • October 15, 2025

    Willful Infringement Claim Survives Dismissal In Gene Sequencing Patent Dispute

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware denied a biotechnology company’s motion to partially dismiss a patent infringement complaint brought against it by a research institution, finding that the research entity plausibly alleged willful infringement of two of its cancer-detection patents based on related European patent disputes.

  • October 10, 2025

    Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation Of Hearing Device Patent Claims

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across three opinions issued Oct. 9, two panels in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a series of decisions by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated multiple claims in three patents related to hearing devices, with the panels agreeing with PTAB that prior art references rendered the patents’ claims obvious.

  • October 09, 2025

    More Amici Urge Supreme Court To Take Up Entresto Patent Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) tells the U.S. Supreme Court in an Oct. 8 amicus curiae brief that it should grant a generic drugmaker’s petition for a writ of certiorari in a dispute over the patent for heart medication Entresto, arguing that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has created conflicting strategies on how to treat after-arising technology.

  • October 09, 2025

    PTAB Erred In Bone Plate Patent Anticipation Finding, Federal Circuit Says

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel has narrowed a medical device company’s wins before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); while the panel affirmed PTAB’s findings as to one of the patents at issue, it also found that substantial evidence did not support the board’s rejection of arguments regarding whether three other patents at issue were anticipated.

  • October 08, 2025

    Panel: Patent Organizations Lacked Standing To Sue PTO For Rules Change

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a District of Columbia federal judge’s decision to dismiss a complaint brought against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) by two organizations that represent patent holders, agreeing with the judge that the organizations lacked standing because they could not show they were injured by the PTO’s decision to deny their petition for rulemaking.

  • October 08, 2025

    Federal Circuit Vacates $20M Patent Award Because Plaintiff Didn’t Own Patents

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that a medical device company lacked standing to bring infringement claims against another device maker because it did not own the patents at issue when the suit was filed; the panel vacated a Massachusetts federal judge’s findings of infringement and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

  • October 08, 2025

    High Court Won’t Consider If Federal Circuit Erred On Hip Implant Color Mark

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a medical ceramics company’s petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving in place a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals holding that the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) correctly canceled its marks because the pink color of its artificial hip parts was a functional element of an expired patent.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari To Crocs In Sprawling Patent, False Ad Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied Crocs Inc.’s petition for a writ of certiorari in which the company argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals improperly expanded the federal false advertising statute to include intangible concepts, including statements about whether a product is patented.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Won’t Hear Device Maker’s Patent Discovery Arguments

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 rejected a medical product company’s petition for a writ of certiorari in which it told the court that a North Carolina federal court violated its due process rights by changing both the time to trial and the time for discovery in a patent infringement case for which the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has already ordered a new trial.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari For Floor Tape Patent, False Ad Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from entities that make floor-marking tape and argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should not have affirmed an Ohio federal judge’s finding that the patent at issue was anticipated by prior art.

  • October 07, 2025

    High Court Won’t Consider Obviousness Of Oxycontin Patent Claims

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 rejected a petition for a writ of certiorari from Purdue Pharma LP and related entities, which told the justices that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has created a rigid nexus test when considering evidence of nonobviousness in a dispute over patents controlling Purdue’s OxyContin drug.

  • October 07, 2025

    Supreme Court Rejects USAA’s Petition In Patent Row With PNC Bank

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied the United Services Automobile Association’s (USAA) petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving in place the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to invalidate USAA’s mobile banking patents; USAA contended that PTAB arbitrarily rendered opposing decisions on its patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by different IPR petitioners.

  • October 07, 2025

    High Court Won’t Review $95M Verdict In E-Cigarette Patent Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by e-cigarette company R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (RJR), which sought review of a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel’s ruling upholding a more than $95 million jury verdict against RJR for infringing three Altria Client Services LLC patents for pod-based e-cigarettes.

  • October 06, 2025

    High Court Won’t Consider Obviousness Of Oxycontin Patent Claims

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 6 rejected a petition for a writ of certiorari from Purdue Pharma LP and related entities, which told the justices that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has created a rigid nexus test when considering evidence of nonobviousness in a dispute over patents controlling Purdue’s Oxycontin drug.

  • October 06, 2025

    Federal Circuit Affirms Slashing Of Medical Staple Patent Damages To $1

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Delaware federal jury’s finding that a medical technology company and affiliated entities infringed a single claim of a competitor’s patent on a surgical stapling product and also affirmed the judge’s decision to reduce the jury’s damages award from $10 million to only $1.

  • October 02, 2025

    Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Obviousness Finding For Social Media Map Patent

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Oct. 1 that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly held that a technology company’s substitute claims in a patent related to displaying social media posts on a geographic map satisfy the written description requirement under the Patent Act; however, the panel also decided that PTAB erred in its consideration of the obviousness of those substitute claims.

  • October 01, 2025

    Federal Circuit: Multiple Errors In Hookless Curtain Infringement Findings

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel issued a mixed opinion Sept. 30 in a long-running intellectual property dispute over hookless shower curtains, affirming a New York federal judge’s findings that one appellant company infringed multiple patents but vacating or reversing findings that another appellant company infringed the patents; the panel also vacated trademark and trade dress infringement findings against the appellant companies and set aside attorney fees.

  • September 30, 2025

    Judge: Prior And Pending Litigation Exclusion Does Not Bar Cyber Liability Coverage

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge granted in part and denied in part an insured and its excess insurers’ summary judgment motions in a cyber liability coverage dispute, holding that the prior and pending litigation policy exclusion does not relieve the excess insurers of their duty to defend but they have no duty to indemnify the insured for the costs it incurred in a reciprocal lawsuit.

  • September 30, 2025

    Federal Circuit Says Ride-Sharing Patents Were Obvious, Affirms Lyft’s Win

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 29 said Lyft Inc. successfully showed that certain claims of patents held by another technology company are unpatentable as obvious, affirming findings from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued in multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

  • September 30, 2025

    Federal Circuit: Company Lacked Standing To Appeal PTAB Lottery Ticket Decision

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that a technology company lacked standing to appeal a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wherein the PTAB held that the company failed to show that multiple claims of a patent related to lottery ticket printing were unpatentable; the panel held that the company failed to show that it had suffered an injury in fact.

  • September 29, 2025

    Tech Companies, PTO Tell High Court PTAB Can Review Expired Patents

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Apple Inc., Google LLC, LG Electronics Inc. and an affiliate tell the U.S. Supreme Court in a pair of Sept. 26 briefs that it should reject a patent-holding company’s petitions for writs of certiorari because they raise arguments about the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the high court has previously rejected.