-
Read more: Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
Although Section 256 corrections of inventorship are generally retroactive, a party can forfeit the ability to rely on such corrections by failing to pursue them with reasonable diligence during ongoing proceedings.
-
Read more: Exafer Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation
There is no per se rule that a reasonable royalty based on unaccused products is unreliable. Whether such a royalty is permissible depends on the case‑specific facts, including whether a causal connection exists between the proposed royalty base and the accused products.
-
Read more: REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
A biological composition is patent‑eligible when the claimed construct, viewed as a whole, does not occur in nature and exhibits characteristics or utility that differ meaningfully from its natural components.
-
Read more: Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corporation
A patent owner fails to meet its burden of proving structural equivalence when it does not address a significant part of the structure identified in the specification as the corresponding means‑plus‑function element.
-
Read more: Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Ltd. (Macao Commercial Offshore)
When a damages expert employs a facially reliable apportionment methodology grounded in evidence and tied to the claimed invention’s incremental value, challenges to data selection, assumptions, or modeling choices ordinarily go to weight, not admissibility.
-
Read more: Apple Inc. v. Squires
The Director’s instructions to the PTAB regarding institution of IPRs are not subject to formal notice-and-comment rulemaking since these instructions constitute general statements of policy rather than substantive rules.
-
Read more: Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC
A modifying phrase is presumed to attach to the nearest semantically plausible term, but that presumption can be overcome if the claim language, specification, or prosecution history indicates a contrary interpretation.
-
Read more: Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.
The drawings of a design patent do not delineate between the functional and ornamental aspects of the claimed design. The existence of alternative designs is not dispositive of functionality for features of a claimed design.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!