Month: March 2025
Understanding Patents and Trademarks: Key Protections for Innovation and Branding
March 12, 2025
A patent is essentially a government-granted right that allows the holder to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing a particular invention for a set period of time. This protection encourages innovation by ensuring that inventors have exclusive rights…
Read MorePatent Board’s Ruling Vacated Over Expert Qualifications and Claim Interpretation in Sierra Wireless v. Sisvel
March 10, 2025
Sierra Wireless v. Sisvel S.P.A Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that had found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,869,396 unpatentable. The patent, owned…
Read MoreFederal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision in CQV v. Merck Over Prior Art Evidence
March 10, 2025
CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Pat. GmbH Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In the recent case of CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed a dispute over the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,647,861, which covers…
Read MoreFederal Circuit Clarifies “Pull Cord” in Tactical Vest Patent Dispute
March 7, 2025
IQRIS Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed how the term “pull cord” should be interpreted in a patent dispute between IQRIS Technologies LLC and Point Blank Enterprises,…
Read MoreFederal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Finding of Obviousness in AliveCor v. Apple Patent Dispute
March 7, 2025
Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a closely watched case, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision that all claims of three AliveCor patents related to wearable heart monitoring…
Read MoreFederal Circuit Affirms Obviousness Ruling for ImmunoGen’s Cancer Drug Dosing Patent Application
March 6, 2025
ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Stewart Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that ImmunoGen, Inc. was not entitled to a patent for a specific dosing regimen of its cancer drug, IMGN853 (mirvetuximab soravtansine), used to…
Read MoreCourt Clarifies What Counts as “Domestic Industry” for Patent Protection at the ITC
March 5, 2025
Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a significant decision for patent owners who manufacture their products overseas, the Federal Circuit in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission clarified what activities can qualify as a…
Read MoreStem Cell Patent Survives Challenge Over Prior Art and Claim Construction
March 4, 2025
Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of Jadi Cell, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, which covers a method for obtaining stem cells from the subepithelial…
Read MoreApple, LG, and Google Succeed in Invalidating Most Gesture Tech Patent Claims, but Two Survive
March 4, 2025
Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated most claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, owned…
Read MorePatent Board Affirms Rejection of DeepMind’s Machine Learning Patent Application, Citing Obviousness and Lack of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
March 4, 2025
USPTO Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky A recent decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) highlights the challenges of patenting advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In the appeal concerning U.S. Patent Application No. 16/319,040, filed by…
Read More