The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the
Intellectual Property Law Blog
Up-to-date Information on Intellectual Property Law
Latest from Intellectual Property Law Blog - Page 2
Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars
The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule…
PTAB Again Upholds the Heavily Litigated Neo Wireless Patent: What the Latest Decisions Mean for Automakers
In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless (Sept. 3, 2025), follows last year’s similar outcome in American Honda, GM, Nissan…
Erroneous Exclusion of On-Sale Bar Evidence: Federal Circuit Revives Invalidity Challenge in Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Patent Dispute
By Mengmeng Du
Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity…
Claiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.
Background
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia.…
The Push and Pull of Prosecution Estoppel: How Cancelled Claims Can Affect the Scope of Non-Amended Claims
Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution.…
Federal Circuit Denies Appellate Jurisdiction Based on Alternative Ground for Relief
By Don Geiger
In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, the Federal Circuit held that it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review a decision by the district court in the Southern District of New York not to modify an arbitral award of patent royalties. Though the Appellant, Accorda Therapeutics, Inc., presented a first ground to modify…
Navigating Shockwave Medical: Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Standing, and Obviousness
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes various key issues in patent litigation, including the role of applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), standing, and obviousness.…
Lexicography: Clear And Unequivocal
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes lexicography in the context of claim construction.…
Navigating Declaratory Judgment: Mitek’s Bid to Head Off USAA’s Patent Claims
This case[1] addresses declaratory judgments of non-infringement in relation to subject-matter jurisdiction and the district court’s refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.…