The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC is a good example of the courts’ ability to correct obvious errors in patent claims through claim construction. Indeed, the panel’s reversal of the lower court’s ruling demonstrates that judicial correction of evident errors in patent claims — even when the error
Intellectual property (IP) is one of the most important assets many technology companies will ever own. Patents are a key part of a company’s IP portfolio. Investors often view a company’s patent portfolio as a signal of innovation, defensibility, and long-term value. Yet patent strategy is rarely at the top of a founder’s to-do list
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation offers important guidance on what it means to be a “prevailing party” and the standards for awarding attorney fees, costs, and sanctions in patent litigation. This ruling, which vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the district court’s decisions, is
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent enforcement in the tech sector where technology typically evolves much faster than other industries. The case, which pitted two giants of the
The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant decision in the ongoing patent litigation between Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) and Qiagen Sciences, LLC, reversing a Delaware district court’s judgment that had found Qiagen liable for infringement of Labcorp’s patents-at-issue. In doing so, it vacated the $4.7 million damages award against Qiagen and ordered the
In a significant blow to Apple, the Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment of noninfringement in the case of Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The dispute centers on Taction’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885 and 10,820,117, which Taction alleged that the Taptic Engine in Apple’s iPhone and Apple Watch products infringed the
In a significant decision for patent law and the fitness equipment industry, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a partial dismissal of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s patent infringement claims brought against iFit, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The infringement allegations against iFit were based on PowerBlock’s U.S. Patent No.
Last week, the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement and damages judgments against Apple in a patent case that involves standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technology brought in the Eastern District of Texas by Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. In Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc. (22-1925), a panel for the
Late last week in Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (24-1324), the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction ruling from the lower court that mostly prohibits NeoGenomics from selling its oncology test marketed as RaDaR®. In doing so, the appellate panel confirms that the district court need not conduct claim
There have been only a few precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit related to obviousness since spring sprung. While these decisions have produced mixed results for the lower courts, clinical study protocols have held up to appellate scrutiny both in the context of motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success.