This episode relates to a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent infringement case, Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation decided October 27, 2025. The core dispute involves the correct claim construction of the term "outer frame" in patents concerning transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Aortic Innovations, appealed a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, which was based on the District Court of Delaware's construction of the claim term as a "self-expanding frame." The appellate court affirmed the district court's construction, agreeing that the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer by consistently using "outer frame" and "self-expanding frame" interchangeably throughout the specification, thereby limiting the claim scope. Consequently, the court affirmed the non-infringement judgment for three patents and dismissed the appeal for the fourth patent due to lack of jurisdiction because its asserted claims had been canceled.

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 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al., decided on October 22, 2025. The core of the case involves Centripetal Networks appealing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held certain claims of their patent unpatentable as obvious. A significant issue addressed is Centripetal’s claim that the PTAB’s decision was "tainted" due to the belated recusal of an administrative patent judge (APJ) who held stock in one of the appellees, Cisco Systems, Inc. While the court affirmed that the APJ’s minimal financial interest did not violate ethics rules, it ultimately vacated the PTAB’s final decision and remanded the case because the Board failed to adequately consider Centripetal’s evidence of copying by Cisco.

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 focuses on an opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning a patent infringement case between Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. (Plaintiff-Appellant) and Fortress Iron, LP, et al. (Defendants-Cross-Appellants). Barrette appealed a lower court's finding of non-infringement related to four of its patents, while Fortress cross-appealed the finding that the claims were not indefinite. The central issue on appeal revolved around the construction of terms like "boss" and "projection," which the district court had limited to integral and fastener-less structures, and the court ultimately affirmed the judgment of non-infringement because Barrette had disclaimed non-integral bosses during prosecution. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the judgment of no invalidity for indefiniteness, finding the patent terms like "sliding" and "causes" provided sufficient guidance to a skilled artisan.

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 details an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal in the case of Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (ITC). The core issue originated from Causam's complaint to the ITC alleging that various companies, including Resideo Smart Homes Technology and ecobee Technologies ULC, were violating a section of the Tariff Act by importing and selling "smart" thermostats that infringed upon Causam's '268 patent related to "demand response" functionality. Although the Federal Circuit affirmed that Causam owned the patent for the purposes of establishing Article III standing, it ultimately dismissed the appeal as moot because a companion case affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's finding that the sole asserted claim of the '268 patent was unpatentable.

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 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's opinion in the case of Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Technologies ULC, decided on October 15, 2025. The core issue is an appeal from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which had ruled that several claims of Causam's U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 were unpatentable due to obviousness following an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by ecobee. The court addresses two main arguments raised by Causam: first, a constitutional challenge concerning the Board's failure to determine the patent's true owner, which the court rejects on the grounds of third-party standing; and second, a challenge to the Board's construction of a key claim limitation regarding the generation of measurement and verification data. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding no reversible error in either the ownership handling or the claim construction, thereby upholding the finding that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

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, dated October 15, 2025, concerns the case of Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. The court addresses an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which had granted summary judgment that Inland’s asserted patent claims were invalid for obviousness based on the doctrine of issue preclusion following previous inter partes reviews (IPRs). The Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred by applying issue preclusion to facts found by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) under a lower standard of proof (preponderance) than the higher standard (clear and convincing evidence) required in district court invalidity proceedings, citing precedent from the ParkerVision and Kroy cases. Consequently, the appellate court vacates the district court's judgment and remands the case for proper analysis, emphasizing that any future summary judgment must be based on evidence presented in court under the clear and convincing standard, not on the Board’s prior 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 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dated October 15, 2025, concerns the patent infringement case of Brita LP v. International Trade Commission (ITC). The court is reviewing Brita's appeal of an ITC decision that found certain claims of Brita's U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141 invalid. Specifically, the patent relates to gravity flow filter media designed to remove contaminants, defined by a metric called the Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirms the ITC's decision, ruling that the patent claims are invalid for lack of written description and lack of enablement because the patent only adequately described carbon-block filters and failed to show possession or teach how to make non-carbon-block filters capable of achieving the required FRAP factor.

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 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion, decided on October 3, 2025, concerning the case of US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The core issue of the appeal was whether the plaintiffs-appellants, US Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United, had standing to sue the PTO for denying their petition for rulemaking. This petition sought to limit the PTO’s discretionary authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that the appellants lacked associational standing because the alleged injury—the increased risk of patent cancellation—was based on a highly speculative chain of future events involving third parties. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a non-speculative injury in fact required for standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

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 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement case, Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The core issues addressed are damages, infringement, and patent validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,650, which relates to surgical stapling systems. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s rulings, specifically upholding the exclusion of Rex Medical's damages expert testimony due to a failure to apportion the value of a prior license agreement. Consequently, the court affirmed the Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) reducing the jury's $10 million damages award to nominal damages of $1 because Rex failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the higher amount. Finally, the court denied Intuitive Surgical's cross-appeal arguments related to non-infringement and the invalidity of the patent for lack of written description.

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, decided on September 30, 2025, concerning a complex intellectual property dispute between Focus Products Group International, LLC (and several related entities, collectively Appellees) and Kartri Sales Co., Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. (Appellants). The case centers on allegations that the Appellants infringed several utility patents, the HOOKLESS® trademark, the EZ ON trademark, and the trade dress associated with the Appellees' "hookless" shower curtains. The Federal Circuit partially affirmed the denial of motions to transfer venue and an "unclean hands" defense, but also reversed key findings of patent and trademark infringement and vacated the determinations on trade dress infringement, willful infringement, and the awarded attorneys' fees, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court's decision hinged on specific interpretations of patent claims, issues of trademark standing, and the functionality of the asserted trade dress features.

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.