The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the usage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the court considered whether a finding of invalidity of claims by the PTAB at an inter partes review could be used to estop a patent holder from asserting patent infringement of different claims of the same patent in district court litigation.
We’re counting down to the new year with a recap of the five most influential patent decisions from 2024. Spanning damages, design patents, infringement loopholes, issue preclusion, and prior art disqualification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active year issuing cases with a direct impact on innovation. With several of these decisions currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2025 is shaping up to bring even more change.
We’re counting down to the new year with a recap of the five most influential patent decisions from 2024. Spanning damages, design patents, infringement loopholes, issue preclusion, and prior art disqualification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active year issuing cases with a direct impact on innovation.
A subject of extensive debate within the U.S. patent system has been the classification of “patent trolls” — most widely defined as individuals or companies that acquire patents solely for the purpose of assertion, often in cases without any merit, but which leverage the high cost of patent litigation defense to force small settlements.
In September 2024, the Federal Circuit clarified the necessary qualifications for a technical expert to testify in a patent lawsuit, holding that while an expert must possess ordinary skill in the art, they need not have possessed such skill "at the time of the alleged invention."
Federal Circuit: Falsely Claiming That a Product Feature is Patented Can Give Rise to a False Advertising Claim Under the Lanham Act Federal Circuit: A Prior Decision in an IPR Does Not Collaterally Estop the Patentee in a Subsequent Litigation Where Invalidity Must be Proven by 'Clear and Convincing Evidence'
The LJN Quarterly Update highlights some of the articles from the nine LJN Newsletters titles over the quarter. Articles include in-depth analysis and insights from lawyers and other practice area experts.
On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling that reversed the District of Delaware's application of the Federal Circuit precedent in In re: Cellect to invalidate a claim in an earlier-filed parent application over admittedly patentably indistinct claims in later-filed (and earlier-expired) child patents. This decision has resolved some substantial questions about the application of obviousness-type double patenting that had been raised by last year's In re Cellect decision.
Federal Circuit: Affirms Preliminary Injunction on Cancer Assays Federal Circuit: Affirms Judgment of Unpatentability on the Pleadings for Claims Directed to Method of Assisting an Investigator in Conducting a Background Investigation
The Act is intended to guard against patent trolling and creates a private cause of action for those targeted by bad faith infringement assertions and contemplates two types of relief: remedies and a bond requirement.
