This opinion concerns an appeal in the case of Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The core of the dispute involves Optis's claims that Apple infringed on five of its standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to LTE technology, used in iPhones, iPads, and Watches. The court vacated earlier judgments on infringement and damages, mandating a new trial due to a non-unanimous jury verdict on infringement and the improper inclusion of an Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement as evidence for damages. Additionally, the court reversed previous rulings regarding the patent eligibility of certain claims and the interpretation of another claim, while affirming a different claim construction, ultimately 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 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal involving Ancora Technologies, Inc. against Roku, Inc., VIZIO, Inc., and Nintendo Co., Ltd. The core of the dispute revolves around the patentability of Ancora's U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, which concerns software for restricting unauthorized use of licensed programs. Specifically, the court reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that claims of the patent were unpatentable due to obviousness, particularly focusing on the interpretation of the term "agent" within the patent's claims and the nexus analysis of objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as licensing agreements. The Court of Appeals ultimately vacated and remanded the Board's decision, finding errors in how the Board applied precedent regarding the nexus of license evidence to nonobviousness.

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 Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal from Agilent Technologies, Inc. against Synthego Corp., concerning the patentability of gene-editing technology related to CRISPR-Cas systems. Agilent appealed decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found all claims of Agilent's U.S. Patent Nos. 10,337,001 and 10,900,034 unpatentable due to anticipation or obviousness based on prior art. The core of the dispute revolves around whether earlier works, particularly "Pioneer Hi-Bred," "Threlfall," and "Deleavey," expressly disclosed or enabled the chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) and their functionality as claimed by Agilent. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported the prior art's anticipatory disclosures and enablement, as well as the obviousness of certain claims.

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 a Federal Circuit opinion regarding a patent dispute between United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and PNC Bank N.A., heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The core of the appeal concerns the patent eligibility of USAA's "Digital Camera Processing System" patent, specifically U.S. Patent No. 10,769,598, U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638, and U.S. Patent No. 9,224,136, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court applied the two-step Alice test to determine if the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether they contained an inventive concept. Ultimately, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of USAA, concluding that the asserted claim from the ’638 patent was directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept, thus deeming it 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 is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement case between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and Sirius XM Radio Inc. The core issue revolves around equitable estoppel, a legal defense where a party is prevented from asserting a claim due to their misleading conduct and another party's detrimental reliance on that conduct. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM, finding that while Fraunhofer's five-year silence constituted misleading conduct, there was a dispute of material fact regarding Sirius XM's reliance on that silence when making business decisions about its satellite radio systems. The case will return to the district court for further proceedings to resolve this factual dispute.

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 Federal Circuit opinion relates to an appeal from Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (Dolby) against Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) regarding a patent dispute. The core issue revolves around Dolby's lack of standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) decision, as determined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dolby attempted to argue standing based on a statutory right to appeal as a "dissatisfied" party, a supposed informational right to know all real parties in interest (RPIs) in the patent review, and various speculative harms, but the court rejected all these arguments. The court emphasized that a statutory right to appeal does not override the constitutional requirement for Article III standing, which necessitates a concrete injury-in-fact. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because Dolby failed to demonstrate a sufficient injury.

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 Federal Circuit opinion concerns an appeal by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., against Moderna, Inc., regarding a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the patent term “branched alkyl” within Alnylam's U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979, specifically whether the alpha-position carbon must be bound to at least three other carbon atoms (tertiary or quaternary) or if two are sufficient (secondary). The District Court for the District of Delaware initially ruled in favor of Moderna, interpreting Alnylam as having acted as its own lexicographer by defining the term in a way that excluded Moderna’s product. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this decision, concluding that Alnylam's patent specification clearly defined “branched alkyl” and that no "otherwise specified" exception applied to allow for a secondary carbon at the alpha position.

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 a patent dispute between Sigray, Inc. and Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, owned by Zeiss, which covers X-ray imaging systems with projection magnification. Sigray challenged the patent's validity through an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), arguing certain claims were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, specifically a reference called Jorgensen. The Court of Appeals reversed the PTAB's decision concerning claims 1, 3, and 4, finding they were indeed anticipated by Jorgensen due to the inherent presence of projection magnification, even at very small levels. The court determined the PTAB incorrectly construed the claim limitation regarding the range of projection magnification. The case is remanded for the PTAB to consider the obviousness of the remaining claims (2, 5, and 6) in light of the court's ruling.

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 Federal Circuit addressing whether a consumer, Rebecca Curtin, had the legal right, or statutory standing, to oppose a trademark registration for "RAPUNZEL" covering dolls and toy figures. The case explores the requirements for bringing an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 of the Lanham Act, particularly focusing on whether a consumer's interests fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the statute and if their alleged harm is proximately caused by the registration, applying the framework established in the Supreme Court's Lexmark decision. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision that Ms. Curtin, as a mere consumer, lacked the necessary commercial interest and demonstrated only too remote and speculative harm to have standing for this type of opposition.

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 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.