This episode concerns a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court opinion, Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., decided on September 25, 2025, addresses an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board regarding the likelihood of confusion between the ASPIRE mark used by CC Serve and the proposed ASPIRE BANK marks of Apex Bank. The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case, specifically upholding the Board's finding of high similarity between the parties' services (DuPont factor two) but vacating the findings on third-party use and overall mark similarity (DuPont factors six and one) due to the Board’s overly narrow scope of services considered. 

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC and others. The court addresses an appeal by the defendants, AT&T and Nokia, against a district court's denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) regarding the noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,134 and 9,548,775, which relate to methods for mitigating intermodulation product interference in radios. The Federal Circuit ultimately found that the jury's verdict of infringement for both patents was not supported by substantial evidence, particularly pointing to contradictory expert testimony regarding the patented methods. Consequently, the court reversed the denial of JMOL for noninfringement of all asserted claims and vacated the substantial damages award of over $166 million. The ruling details the technical reasons for noninfringement, focusing on the lack of evidence that the accused radios performed key claim limitations in both patents.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerns a patent infringement appeal case, Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. The appeal concerns the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) final written decision holding claims of Bayer's U.S. Patent No. 10,828,310, which describes methods using rivaroxaban and aspirin to reduce cardiovascular risk, unpatentable. The Court affirms-in-part and vacates-in-part the PTAB's decision, specifically upholding the unpatentability of claims 1–4, but vacating the judgment for claims 5–8 due to an incorrect claim construction of the term "first product." The Court also determined that the phrase "clinically proven effective" did not make the claims patentable because it lacked a necessary "functional relationship" with the claimed method. Furthermore, the Court found the PTAB provided sufficient rationale for combining prior art references, Foley and Plosker, and dismissed Bayer's argument about unexpected results because the evidence lacked the required nexus to the claimed invention's merits.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This opinion concerns an appeal from a district court ruling in a patent infringement case between Magēmā Technology LLC and Phillips 66. Magēmā Technology, which holds a patent for desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil (HMFO), sued Phillips 66 for infringement. The core issue on appeal concerns Phillips 66's improper and prejudicial argument at trial that ISO 8217 standards required actual testing data for fuel compliance, despite previously telling Magēmā that such testing was dangerous and estimates (using the Riazi Formula) would suffice. The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a new trial, finding that the jury's non-infringement verdict could have been influenced by Phillips 66's misleading arguments, and also upheld the district court's construction of the term "HMFO." The case is now remanded for a new trial, where Phillips 66 is forbidden from making the aforementioned actual-testing argument.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This non-precedential decision concerns a patent dispute between Google LLC and Sonos, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a previous judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The appeal primarily addresses the validity and enforceability of several Sonos patents related to media playback systems, specifically the "Zone Scene" patents (U.S. Patent 10,469,966 and 10,848,885) and the "Direct Control" patent (U.S. Patent 10,779,033). The court reversed parts of the district court's decision, particularly regarding the invalidity and unenforceability of the Zone Scene patents due to lack of written description and prosecution laches. However, the appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment that the Direct Control patent was invalid due to obviousness.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details the ongoing litigation in the case of Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Coke Morgan Stewart, focusing on patent applications filed by Hyatt in the 1990s. The court addresses Hyatt's appeals concerning the affirmative defense of prosecution laches asserted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and Hyatt's cross-appeals regarding the district court's lack of Article III jurisdiction over certain claims. The court affirms the district court's judgment in favor of the PTO on the prosecution laches defense, finding that Hyatt engaged in unreasonable and unexplainable delay in prosecuting his applications. It also upholds the district court's determination that it lacked Article III jurisdiction over claims where the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences had reversed examiner rejections, as Hyatt failed to demonstrate sufficient injury or dissatisfaction with these favorable decisions.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

The opinion concerns an appeal by Erik Brunetti to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the refusal to register the word "FUCK" as a trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) had previously affirmed the examining attorney's decision, citing that the word failed to function as a trademark because it is a widely-used, all-purpose expression that consumers would not perceive as a source identifier for goods and services. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the Board's decision, arguing that while the Board's factual findings regarding the word's ubiquity were sound, it failed to articulate a clear and consistent standard for determining when such "all-purpose word marks" can be registered, especially in light of other similar words and phrases that have been successfully trademarked. A dissenting opinion, however, asserts that the word's pervasive and varied use inherently prevents it from functioning as a source identifier, and that further guidance from the Board is unnecessary to reach this conclusion.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This opinion concerns an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Global Health Solutions LLC v. Marc Selner and was decided on August 26, 2025. The core issue revolves around a derivation proceeding under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA), which transitioned the U.S. patent system from "first-to-invent" to "first-inventor-to-file." Global Health Solutions (GHS) alleged that Selner, who filed his patent application first, derived his invention from GHS's founder, Bradley Burnam. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruled in Selner's favor, finding he had conceived the invention earlier and independently, a decision upheld by the Federal Circuit, which determined any procedural errors by the Board were harmless. The appeal also addresses GHS's arguments regarding corroboration of evidence, the burden of proof, and the necessity of reduction to practice for conception, all of which the court rejected.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This opinion concerns an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement case. The plaintiffs-appellees, including Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, successfully sued defendants-appellants Qiagen Sciences, LLC, for infringing their U.S. Patent 10,017,810 and U.S. Patent 10,450,597, which relate to methods for preparing DNA samples. The jury initially awarded damages to the plaintiffs; however, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, finding insufficient evidence to support the infringement claims for both patents. The core of the appeal centers on the interpretation of specific claim terms within the patents, particularly how "identical" and "target-specific primer" should be understood in the context of DNA sequencing preparation. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying Qiagen's motion for judgment as a matter of law, leading to a reversal of the infringement findings.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc. The core issue revolves around the patent eligibility of PowerBlock's U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771, which pertains to selectorized dumbbells with automated weight adjustment. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, which had found most claims of the patent to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were deemed "abstract ideas." The appellate court concluded that the patent claims, particularly claim 1, describe a sufficiently specific mechanical invention and are therefore patent eligible, remanding the case for further proceedings.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.