In this episode we discuss a ruling in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment against Gen Digital Inc. (formerly Symantec) in a long-standing patent dispute with Columbia University. The court determined that the university's patents, which involve detecting computer viruses using emulated program executions and data modeling, are directed toward an abstract idea and are thus potentially ineligible for protection. Consequently, the case was remanded for the lower court to decide if the specific method of using function calls provides a unique, patentable invention. The appellate judges also significantly limited the $185 million damages award by ruling that sales to foreign customers cannot be penalized under U.S. patent law. Furthermore, the court ordered a reconsideration of enhanced damages and legal fees, partly because a previous contempt order against the defendant's counsel was overturned. Despite these reversals, the court upheld the original claim construction of "emulator" and affirmed that the evidence supported the jury's initial finding of 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 judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Implicit, LLC and Sonos, Inc. The court affirmed a ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which found several of Implicit’s patent claims unpatentable because they were preceded by prior art. Although Implicit attempted to bypass this prior art by correcting the listed inventors on its patents after the initial trial, the court held that the company had forfeited this new argument by failing to raise it sooner. The judges determined that the board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting these late changes, as Implicit possessed the relevant evidence from the start of the litigation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the retroactive nature of inventorship corrections does not shield a party from the legal consequences of failing to present arguments in a timely manner.

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 a legal reversal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent infringement lawsuit between Exafer Ltd. and Microsoft Corporation. Initially, a lower court excluded Exafer’s damages expert testimony because it used unaccused virtual machines as the financial base for calculating royalties. The appellate court disagreed, ruling that the expert's methodology was sound because it established a causal connection between the patented network optimizations and Microsoft’s ability to host more virtual machines. Consequently, the court overturned the exclusion of the expert report and vacated the summary judgment previously granted to Microsoft. This decision reinstates Exafer's ability to seek a remedy for the alleged infringement of its data-forwarding and network-optimization patents within the Azure Platform.

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 2026 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent infringement dispute between Magnolia Medical Technologies and Kurin, Inc. The conflict centers on specialized medical devices designed to prevent blood sample contamination by sequestering the initial, microbe-heavy portion of a blood draw. The court affirmed a prior ruling that Kurin did not infringe on Magnolia’s '483 patent because the patented design required two distinct structures for a "vent" and a "seal," whereas Kurin’s product used a single porous plug for both functions. Additionally, the court upheld the classification of the term "diverter" in the '001 patent as a "means-plus-function" term, which significantly limited its legal scope. Ultimately, the appellate judges concluded that the district court's narrow interpretations of the patent claims were legally sound. This decision effectively maintains the final judgment in favor of Kurin, ending Magnolia's claims of infringement for these specific medical technologies.

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 judicial opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving a legal battle between Global Tubing LLC and Tenaris over coiled tubing technology used in the oil and gas industry. The court vacated summary judgment rulings regarding inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud, determining that several genuine disputes of material fact require a trial. Central to the dispute is whether a Tenaris inventor, Dr. Martín Valdez, intentionally deceived the Patent and Trademark Office by withholding specific documents related to a predecessor product called CYMAX. While a lower court initially found clear evidence of fraud, the appellate court ruled that conflicting testimony regarding the relevance of the omitted data must be weighed by a factfinder. Additionally, the court revived Global Tubing’s antitrust claim, noting that Tenaris’s market share might still pose a dangerous probability of a monopoly despite its relatively small size. The case has been remanded for further proceedings to resolve these contested issues of intent, materiality, and market definition.

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 Federal Circuit which addresses a patent dispute regarding genetically engineered host cells used in gene therapy. The court reversed a lower court's ruling that had invalidated the patent for allegedly claiming a natural phenomenon. The judges determined that the claimed cells are human-made inventions because they contain recombinant nucleic acid from different species, which does not exist in nature. By comparing the technology to landmark cases like Chakrabarty and Myriad, the court concluded that these modified cells possess "markedly different" characteristics from natural products. Consequently, the patent was deemed eligible for protection under federal law, and the case was sent back for further legal 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.

In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling that cleared Sony of patent infringement charges brought by Genuine Enabling Technology (GET). The dispute centered on a patent for synchronizing data streams within computer input devices, specifically targeting the technology used in PlayStation controllers. The court found that GET’s expert failed to provide a sufficient structural equivalence analysis, as he ignored several critical components of the patented logic design. By focusing almost exclusively on the bit-rate clock and failing to examine the internal schematics of Sony's Bluetooth modules, the plaintiff’s case was deemed evidentiary deficient. Ultimately, the court concluded that GET did not prove the accused products functioned in substantially the same "way" as the protected 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 concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which affirms a district court’s decision involving a patent dispute over pre-lit artificial Christmas trees. The court upheld a jury verdict finding that Willis Electric’s patent for integrated mechanical and electrical trunk connections was valid and infringed by Polygroup, resulting in a $42.5 million damages award. A central issue was the obviousness of the invention; however, the court found substantial evidence that a skilled artisan would lack the motivation to combine prior technology to achieve the specific rotational independence claimed by the patent. Furthermore, the court defended the admissibility of expert testimony regarding damages, clarifying that while a reasonable royalty involves approximation, the methodology used was sufficiently tied to the patented feature's market value. Ultimately, the ruling reinforces the district court’s gatekeeping role under Rule 702, emphasizing that disputes over the precision of an expert's data generally affect the weight of the evidence for the jury rather than its legal admissibility.

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 legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses a patent dispute between Netflix and DivX regarding streaming technology. The core of the conflict involves the interpretation of claim construction for a patent describing how playback devices locate and decrypt partially encrypted video. Originally, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of DivX by narrowly defining where encryption information must be stored within a data stream. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, applying standard grammatical principles to conclude that the patent does not strictly require encryption data to be located within the requested video portions. Consequently, the court vacated the previous ruling and remanded the case, finding that Netflix’s evidence of prior art likely renders the patent 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.

In this episode of the podcast, we discuss the decision in Apple v. Squires in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not required to use formal notice-and-comment rulemaking when issuing instructions for denying patent reviews. The dispute centered on the NHK-Fintiv factors, which guide the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in deciding whether to decline inter partes review when parallel district court litigation is pending. The court determined these instructions are general statements of policy rather than substantive rules because they do not bind the PTO Director, who retains ultimate discretionary authority. Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes that petitioners have no statutory right to the institution of a review, leaving their legal obligations unchanged if a petition is denied. Ultimately, because the guidelines do not carry the force and effect of law, they are exempt from the rigorous procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

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.