This episode concerns a judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit brought against Google. The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637, which describes a web conferencing system that allows users to review recorded segments of a presentation while it is still occurring. The court concluded that the patent is legally invalid because it focuses on the abstract idea of asynchronous content review rather than a specific technological breakthrough. Furthermore, the judges found that the invention lacked an inventive concept, as it relied on conventional software components and well-known data manipulation techniques. Ultimately, the court upheld the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ruling that no amendment to the complaint could overcome the patent's inherent lack of eligibility.

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 in Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewing a district court's decision to exclude critical expert testimony and granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant. The dispute centers on patent infringement allegations regarding surgical tools and techniques used to correct spinal deformities through a method known as "en bloc derotation." While the lower court dismissed the testimony of Dr. Yassir and Dr. Neal as unreliable and contradictory, the appellate court ruled that these exclusions were an abuse of discretion. The judges determined that the experts’ findings were valid applications of the law rather than contradictions, meaning the jury should have been allowed to weigh the evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, asserting that the credibility of such expert analysis is a factual matter for a jury to decide.

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 resolving a dispute between Crocs, Inc. and the International Trade Commission regarding trademark infringement of the "Classic Clog" design. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal concerning active competitors because Crocs failed to file its challenge within the required 60-day window following the initial no-violation finding. Although Crocs argued that the timeline should be paused during a presidential review period, the court ruled that such delays only apply to findings of actual violations, not exonerations. Additionally, the court affirmed the Commission's decision to issue only a limited exclusion order against defaulting companies rather than the broader, industry-wide ban Crocs requested. The judges concluded that the Commission acted within its legal discretion by restricting the remedy to those specific parties that failed to participate in the investigation. This ruling emphasizes that appellate deadlines are strictly enforced and that remedial measures in trade disputes are closely tied to the specific status of the respondents.

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 affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate several patents owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). The legal dispute with Ford Motor Company centered on fuel management systems designed to reduce "engine knock" by using both direct and port fuel injection. The court rejected EBS’s procedural challenge regarding an alleged unauthorized stay of the proceedings, ruling that such institution-related decisions are generally shielded from judicial review. Furthermore, the court upheld a broad claim construction of the term "fuel," finding that the patents did not specifically exclude the use of gasoline as an anti-knock agent. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the claimed inventions were obvious based on combinations of existing automotive prior art.

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.

In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal involving Micron Technology and patent licensing firms Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies. The dispute stems from a lower court's decision to apply the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, which required the licensing firms to post an $8 million bond after they were accused of "patent trolling." The appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order was not a final judgment and did not meet the strict criteria for an immediate interlocutory appeal. Consequently, the court refused to rule on whether the state law was preempted by federal patent law or if the bond amount was excessive. This ruling effectively maintains the status quo, requiring the parties to continue the litigation in the district court before any further federal appeals can be pursued.

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 is about an Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement case between Wonderland Switzerland AG and Evenflo Company, Inc. The central conflict involves Evenflo appealing a district court's judgment that its convertible car seats infringed upon two of Wonderland's patents, the '043 and '951 patents, which cover car seat technology. The Court of Appeals affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case, notably finding that no reasonable jury could find Evenflo's 4-in-1 seats infringed the '043 patent and reversing a permanent injunction against Evenflo for both patents due to lack of support for irreparable harm. Additionally, the court reversed the denial of a new trial on willful infringement for the '043 patent concerning Evenflo's 3-in-1 seats, arguing the district court improperly excluded probative evidence of Evenflo's subjective intent. Circuit Judge Reyna wrote an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part, disagreeing with the majority's decision to reverse the denial of a new trial on willful infringement.

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 a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, dated December 10, 2025, concerning a trademark dispute between Game Plan, Inc., the appellant, and Uninterrupted IP, LLC (UNIP), the appellee. The core issue is an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that canceled Game Plan's registration for its stylized mark, which includes the phrase "I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE." The Federal Circuit considered two main arguments from Game Plan: that the TTAB erred in granting UNIP priority based on its acquisition of common law rights to a similar mark, and that the TTAB improperly excluded Game Plan’s evidence due to procedural failures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the TTAB's decision, concluding that UNIP's acquisition of common law rights to MORE THAN AN ATHLETE was valid and established priority over Game Plan’s mark, regardless of the procedural arguments regarding UNIP's intent-to-use applications. The court also upheld the TTAB's exclusion of Game Plan's evidence, noting that the materials were not properly entered into the trial record.

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 presents an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal filed by Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co. concerning the registration of the trademark KAHWA. The court reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision, which had affirmed the examiner's refusal to register KAHWA for use in cafés and coffee shops. The initial refusals were based on arguments that KAHWA was generic or merely descriptive because it meant "coffee" in Arabic or referred to a specific Kashmiri green tea, but the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the Board's determination. The court found that the findings of genericness and mere descriptiveness based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning were not supported by substantial evidence, as there was no record that U.S. cafés or coffee shops sold this specific tea. Furthermore, the court concluded that the doctrine of foreign equivalents could not be applied because the mark had a well-established alternative English meaning, thus clearing the way for KAHWA to be registrable.

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 covers an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), the appellant, and Zillow Group, Inc., and Zillow, Inc. (Zillow), the cross-appellants. The appeal and cross-appeal stem from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) concerning the patentability of claims in IBM’s ’346 patent, which relates to single sign-on (SSO) operations. The court ultimately affirms the Board's decision, which had found certain claims unpatentable based on the prior art reference Sunada and had found other claims not unpatentable. Key issues addressed include whether the Board overstepped the scope of the original petition when assessing "protected resources" and whether the Board had substantial evidence for its findings regarding an "identifier associated with the user".

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 is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the appeal in the case of Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, which revolves around claims of trade secret misappropriation and a denial for the correction of inventorship for a Goodyear patent related to self-inflating tire (SIT) technology. The plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "Coda," were appealing a district court's decision that granted Goodyear judgment as a matter of law despite a jury previously finding in Coda's favor and awarding millions in damages. The appellate court affirms the district court's judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Coda proved all elements required for a trade secret misappropriation claim under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act or that the correction of inventorship was warranted. Specifically, the court found that Coda's alleged trade secrets (TS 7, TS 11, TS 20, TS 23, and TS 24) were either not sufficiently definite, not secret, or that Goodyear had not used them.

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.