This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent interference proceeding between The Regents of the University of California and The Broad Institute. The core dispute involves priority of invention for a CRISPR-Cas9 system using single-guide RNA for editing DNA in eukaryotic cells. The court reviews the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decisions on conception and written description of the invention, ultimately affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding the case regarding the main appeal, while dismissing The Broad Institute's cross-appeal as moot. The court found that the Board legally erred in its analysis of conception by improperly requiring knowledge that the invention would work and failing to adequately consider routine methods or skill in its assessment.

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 decision on an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC. The core issue is IOENGINE's appeal of a jury verdict and subsequent court decisions which found certain patent claims invalid due to prior art, specifically a device known as the DiskOnKey System, including its Firmware Upgrader. IOENGINE argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish the DiskOnKey System as prior art under "public use" or "on sale" laws and that the district court made errors in jury instructions and allowing certain evidence despite IPR estoppel. The court affirms the prior ruling, finding substantial evidence supports the jury's finding of public use and concluding that IPR estoppel does not prevent the use of this type of prior art in a district court setting.

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 IN RE: MIODRAG KOSTIC, GUY VANDEVELDE, concerning their appeal from a United States Patent and Trademark Office decision. The case centers on a reissue application for U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, titled "System for Conducting an Exchange of Click-Through Traffic on Internet Web Sites." The core issue is whether a reissued claim (claim 3) improperly broadened the scope of the original patent claims, which is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) when the application is filed more than two years after the original patent was granted. The court ultimately affirms the decision against the appellants, finding that the reissued claim is indeed broader because it allows for alternative processes, whereas the original claim required specific steps including a trial process.

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 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning a patent infringement lawsuit between Fintiv, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc. Fintiv sued PayPal, asserting infringement of four patents related to a "cloud-based transaction system". The core issue on appeal is the district court's ruling that certain claim terms, specifically "payment handler" and "payment handler service," are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The court examined whether these terms constitute means-plus-function limitations and if the patent specifications provide sufficient corresponding structure or an algorithm for the claimed functions, ultimately affirming the district court's decision that the claims are indefinite due to the lack of disclosed structure.

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 PT Medisafe Technologies' attempt to register a dark green color for medical examination gloves as a trademark. The court affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which had denied registration because the proposed color mark was found to be generic. Applying a two-step test specifically for color marks, the court agreed that the color was too common within the relevant class of goods (chloroprene medical examination gloves) to identify a single source. Therefore, the court concluded that the proposed mark failed to function as a source indicator and was ineligible for trademark protection.

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 an appeal involving Qualcomm Incorporated and Apple Inc., with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an intervenor. The core issue revolves around Apple's challenge to a Qualcomm patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Specifically, the dispute focuses on whether Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) can form "the basis" of a ground for challenging a patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits such grounds to "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications." The court examines the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's prior decisions, PTO guidance memoranda, and relevant case law, ultimately finding that the Board erred in its interpretation and application of the statute by concluding that AAPA used in combination with other prior art does not form the basis of the ground.

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 regarding a patent dispute between Recentive Analytics, Inc. and Fox Corp. The core issue on appeal is the patent eligibility of Recentive's patents, which relate to using machine learning for generating television broadcast schedules and network maps. The district court had dismissed Recentive's case, finding the patents were directed to ineligible abstract ideas. The Court of Appeals affirms this decision, concluding that merely applying generic machine learning to a new domain without demonstrating an inventive concept or improvement to the machine learning itself is not patent eligible.

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 dispute between Sage Products, LLC and the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Sage appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that certain claims in two of its patents were unpatentable based on prior art. The court reviewed the Board's findings concerning anticipation, the knowledge of a skilled artisan, and alleged procedural errors, ultimately affirming the Board's judgment that Sage's patent claims were anticipated by 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.

This  is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding an appeal by Donald K. Forest. The central issue is whether the Patent Office can grant a patent, specifically U.S. Patent Application No. 15/391,116, after its potential twenty-year term has already expired. The court ultimately dismisses Forest's appeal, reasoning that patent law, particularly 35 U.S.C. § 154, intends provisional rights to exist as a temporary precursor to, and in conjunction with, the standard exclusionary rights of a patent, which cannot exist if the patent term has lapsed. Therefore, an expired patent cannot confer either exclusionary or provisional rights.

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 addresses a dispute concerning a patent application for an integrated logistics system. The core issue revolves around whether a prior published patent application, referred to as Lettich, can be considered prior art against the current application. The court is specifically examining if Lettich can claim the earlier filing date of its provisional application, which would impact its status as prior art. Ultimately, the court vacates and remands the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision because the Board did not adequately analyze whether the specific content in Lettich relied upon to reject the current application was supported by Lettich's provisional application.

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.