This episode is about an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the case of Adnexus Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., which concerns a patent infringement lawsuit. Adnexus, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against Meta for failure to state a claim, specifically focusing on whether Meta’s "Lead Ads" product infringed on a patent for an online advertising system. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the patent claim requiring the retrieval of a user profile that includes "delivery method preferences"; the district court ruled that Adnexus failed to plausibly allege this element was met because contact information was distinct from delivery method preferences. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, finding that the district court erred by implicitly construing the claim term against Adnexus without a proper claim construction process. The appellate court concluded that Adnexus's allegations, which suggested that contact information could be considered a form of delivery method preference, were sufficient to state a plausible claim for 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 presents an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, resolving a patent dispute between Seagen Inc. and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. concerning an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) cancer treatment. Seagen had previously secured a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas finding that Daiichi's drug, Enhertu®, willfully infringed the ’039 patent and awarded Seagen over $41 million in damages. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), finding the ’039 patent to be invalid. The court ruled that the patent failed to meet the written description requirement because its original 2004 priority application did not specifically disclose the claimed Gly/Phe-only tetrapeptide subgenus, only a broad group of over 47 million options. Furthermore, the patent failed the enablement requirement, as using any drug moiety in the ADC required undue trial-and-error discovery to confirm its necessary functionality. Consequently, the patent was deemed invalid, and the findings of willful infringement and the damages award were vacated.

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 (CAFC) in 2025, addressing an appeal by Gesture Technology Partners, LLC concerning the unpatentability of its ’431 patent. The case centered on an ex parte reexamination that proceeded despite the existence of two related inter partes reviews (IPRs) that had already found most claims invalid. Gesture challenged the Patent Office’s denial of its petition to terminate the review, arguing that IPR estoppel should apply against the requester (Samsung) to an ongoing ex parte proceeding, but the CAFC rejected this statutory interpretation, confirming that the estoppel provision is inapplicable against the Patent Office maintaining the reexamination. Furthermore, the court rejected Gesture’s assertion that the Patent Office lacked jurisdiction over the expired patent, upholding prior reasoning that such reviews create a live case or controversy. Ultimately, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's conclusion that prior art anticipated claims 11 and 13, thereby affirming the unpatentability of all remaining claims in the patent.

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 addressing the appeal filed by EscapeX IP, LLC against a series of sanction rulings granted in favor of Google LLC. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the patent infringement case against Google was "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, largely because EscapeX failed to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation and proceeded with frivolous claims even after being repeatedly warned. EscapeX also appealed the denial of its motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), which the Federal Circuit agreed was properly denied because the purported "newly discovered evidence" was available earlier. Furthermore, the court upheld the award of a second set of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, concluding that EscapeX’s attorneys acted recklessly by filing and prolonging the litigation over the frivolous post-judgment motion. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed all decisions, including making EscapeX and its counsel jointly and severally liable for the second fee award.

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 in a patent dispute involving Akamai Technologies, Inc. and MediaPointe, Inc. The appeal centered on patents describing an "intelligent distribution network" for streaming media, with the appellate court affirming the lower court’s final judgment on all contested issues. The court upheld the invalidity of multiple claims containing terms like "optimal" or "best" because the specification lacked the necessary objective boundaries or clear guidance for weighing various performance metrics such as latency and hops. For the remaining asserted claims, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to Akamai, finding that MediaPointe failed to show that Akamai's system met a key limitation requiring the management center to receive an initial request for media content. This failure stemmed from evidence showing that Akamai's component only received a DNS query, which the court determined was not the requested content message required by the claim language.

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 regards an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., decided on November 18, 2025. The core issue is an appeal from Sandoz regarding a lower court's judgment that upheld the validity of claim 30 of U.S Patent No. 9,579,270, which relates to using specific prostaglandin F analogs for treating hair loss. Duke University and Allergan Sales, LLC, the owners of the patent, had previously won a jury trial finding that Sandoz failed to prove the claim was invalid for lack of adequate written description and were awarded $39 million in damages. The Federal Circuit Court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could have found that the patent specification provided a sufficient written description to lead a skilled artisan to the claimed subgenus of chemical compounds, especially since the patent's description was overly broad and failed to include sufficient "blaze marks" to define the specific invention.

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 infringement case between Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc., and Opti-Luxx Inc. This judicial decision addresses two separate patents related to illuminated school bus signs, a design patent (D930) and a utility patent (’491). For the D930 patent, the appellate court vacates the infringement judgment and orders a new trial because the lower court incorrectly construed the patent term “transparency,” finding it erroneously synonymous with "translucent." Regarding the ’491 patent, the court reverses the denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Opti-Luxx, concluding that no reasonable jury could find infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the accused product did not perform all the functions of the patented “frame” as described in the specification. As a result of these findings, the permanent injunction previously issued against Opti-Luxx is vacated.

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 in the case of Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, decided on November 12, 2025. The core issue of the appeal is whether the U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, owned by Canatex, is invalid for indefiniteness due to an alleged clerical error in the claims. Specifically, the patent uses the phrase “the connection profile of the second part,” which Canatex argued should be corrected to “first part” because the context of the invention, relating to a downhole oil and gas tool, makes the error evident and the correction the only logical one. The district court had ruled the patent claims invalid, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the error was indeed obvious on the face of the patent and that changing “second” to “first” was the only reasonable correction that a skilled artisan would recognize. The court's ruling emphasized that judicial correction of claim terms is appropriate when the demanding standard for an obvious error and unique correction is met, thereby 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.

This episode is about a judicial order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dated November 6, 2025, concerning the case In Re MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. The court addresses Motorola Solutions' Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) following the PTO's de-institution of several inter partes reviews (IPRs) involving patents held by Stellar, LLC. The core of the dispute involves the Acting Director's rescission of prior guidance, known as the Vidal Memorandum, which related to the discretionary denial of IPRs based on parallel district court litigation using the Fintiv factors and the consideration of Sotera stipulations. Motorola argued that the rescission and its application violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause, but the court ultimately denied the petition, finding that judicial review of the institution decisions is generally barred and that Motorola failed to establish a clear right to relief.

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 regards a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, dated October 30, 2025, concerning a patent dispute between Merck Serono S.A. and Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc. The case involves Merck's appeal of two consolidated inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which had found certain claims of two Merck patents related to an oral cladribine regimen for treating multiple sclerosis (MS) unpatentable as obvious. The primary legal issue reviewed is whether a prior art reference, the Bodor publication, was properly considered "by another" under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e), given a potential overlap in inventors between the Bodor publication and the patents-in-suit. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Bodor disclosure was prior art and, when combined with the Stelmasiak reference, rendered the challenged claims obvious.

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.