On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found four Recentive Analytics, Inc. (“Recentive”) patents directed to the use of machine learning—U.S. Patent Nos. 11,386,367 (the “’367 patent”); 11,537,960 (the “’960 patent”); 10,911,811 (the “’811 patent”); and 10,958,957 (the “’957 patent”) (collectively, “asserted patents”)—ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437, ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 1142021 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).  

On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced healthcare providers to infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,143,693 (“the ’693 patent”), and that Mylan did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the ’693 patent is invalid. Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Lab’ys Ltd., No. 2023-2042, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025).

On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on prior art, including the ChloraPrep Public Assessment Report (“PAR”) and other references. Sage Prods., LLC v. Stewart, No. 23-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025).

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming a district court’s judgement of infringement while vacating and remanding the district court’s damages award, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages ascribed to convoyed sales. Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., No. 2023-1841, slip op. at *26 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application (“Lettich”) qualified as prior art to a pending application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678 (the “’168 Application”), because the Board’s analysis as to Lettich’s prior art status was incomplete.  In re Riggs, No. 22-1945, __ F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).

Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States.  Lashify alleged, in a Section 337 Investigation at the International Trade Commission, that certain importers of similar products infringed three of its patents: a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984) and two design patents (U.S. Design Patent Nos. D877,416 and D867,664).  

On February 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendant Parse Biosciences’s (“Parse”) motions for summary judgment that:  (i) Parse had never actually conducted any direct or indirect infringing activity with respect to the claims of certain asserted patents (the “Giresi Patent” family) or that any such infringement was de minimis and (ii) the claims of certain asserted patents (the “Brenner Patent” family) are invalid for lack of written description support and for failure to claim what the inventor “regarded as” their invention.

On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision limiting the Lanham Act’s scope of damages in a trademark infringement action.

On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction by the Northern District of West Virginia in favor of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“SB”) and other biosimilar applicants. Regeneron had sued defendants for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865, which covers formulations of aflibercept, a fusion protein that binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and is used to treat angiogenic eye diseases. Regeneron markets aflibercept under the brand name EYLEA^®.

On, January 27, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on certain claims of Gesture Technology Partners, LLC’s (“Gesture”) U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the ʼ949 patent) and, in so doing, held that the PTAB had jurisdiction to conduct inter partes review (“IPR”) on expired patents.

On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 unpatentable.  Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., (Fed. Cir. January 14, 2025).  In its decision, the CAFC considered the question of when a published patent application is deemed prior art in an inter partes review (“IPR”) and concluded, as did the PTAB, that they are prior art as of their filing date.

On January 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277 patent”) by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp”).

On May 6, 2021, plaintiffs sued defendants for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  The parties are biotechnology companies and competitors that offer tools for studying genetic material on a cellular level, including competing sequencing-based tools for performing spatial analyses of biological molecules.  

On December 16, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in its decision regarding the unpatentability of claims from Centripetal Networks’ U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903 (“the ’903 Patent”). 

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 7,865,538; and 8,255,439, which claim methods for storing, organizing, and presenting data in time-ordered streams on a computer system.  In 2017, Mirror Worlds filed suit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“District Court”), alleging that several Facebook features infringed the patents.  

In biomodal Ltd. v. New England BioLabs, Inc., No. 24-cv-11697-RGS, Dkt. No. 78 (D. Mass. Nov. 2024), Defendant New England BioLabs, Inc. (“NEB”) filed a motion to dismiss the claims of infringement of five patents as relating to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, while Plaintiff biomodal Ltd. (“biomodal”) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin NEB from marketing its allegedly infringing products.

On October 18, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision addressing claim construction at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. In UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., No. 2023-145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024), the Federal Circuit rejected a categorical claim construction bar at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage and clarified that the standard allows a court to arrive at a sufficient claim construction at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage without a formal Markman hearing.

In Champion Power Equipment Inc. v. Firman Power Equipment Inc., No. CV-23-02371-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2024), defendant filed a motion for a protective order seeking two forms of relief:

1. a patent prosecution bar that would preclude certain attorneys representing plaintiff from performing patent prosecution work for a period of two years following the conclusion of the action; and
2. an order allowing each side the opportunity to object before its confidential information was shared with the other party’s non-technical experts.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the former and granted the latter. Id. at 2.

Intellectual property policy may not have driven many voters to the polls on November 7, but change was on the ballot. Below, we summarize changes in U.S. intellectual property law that you might see starting in January 2025.

On October 31, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding that two of Centripetal Network, LLC’s (“Centripetal”) patents directed to network security are unpatentable. Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1654, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2024).

On October 24, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that may have implications for litigation involving standard essential patents (SEPs). Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., No. 24-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024). The Court vacated the district court’s denial of Lenovo’s request for an antisuit injunction to prevent Ericsson from enforcing injunctions obtained in Colombia and Brazil, and remanded the case for further proceedings below. In doing so, the Federal Circuit clarified that the “dispositive” requirement of the general framework for analyzing foreign-antisuit-injunction requests may be met even where a foreign antisuit injunction would not resolve the entire foreign proceeding, but only the foreign injunction.

On October 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the District of Connecticut that had dismissed AlexSam, Inc.’s patent infringement claims against Aetna, Inc. AlexSam had alleged that Aetna’s Mastercard-branded and VISA-branded products infringed claims of AlexSam’s U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (“’608 patent”). 

On September 23, 2024, Judge Kleeh of the Northern District of West Virginia denied Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Regeneron”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) related to Amgen’s filing of an abbreviated Biologics License Application (“BLA”) seeking authorization to commercialize “ABP 938,” a biosimilar version of Regeneron’s Eylea.

On October 2, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Case No. 5:19-cv-06021-SRB, Judge Stephen R. Bough, denying defendant Weber’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. October 2, 2024). In its decision, the CAFC found that the district court had wrongly upheld a jury verdict finding infringement where the accused product could not readily be placed in an infringing configuration and finding willfulness based on testimony suggesting a failure to seek advice of counsel. The CAFC further found that the district court abused its discretion by upholding a flawed damages verdict.

On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed other infringement claims brought against Meta Platforms, Inc. as moot, after other patents at issue were found unpatentable in inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Angel Techs. Grp. LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2022-2100 (C.A.F.C. 2024).

On September 16, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision from the District Court of Minnesota which held the asserted claims of medical patents to be indefinite.

In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  The appellate decision, authored by Judge Cecchi, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, dismissed the appeal of Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. (PTOT), a Taiwanese optical filter manufacturer, for lack of standing.  The CAFC held that PTOT failed to show an injury in fact that was concrete, particularized, and imminent, as required by the Constitution and the case law.

On July 30, 2024, United States Senators Christopher Coons (R-Delaware) and Thomas Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced the “Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2024” or the “RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2024” to the Senate.  This bill intends to give a patent owner a rebuttable presumption of permanent injunction when the patent owner prevails on its claim of patent infringement.

In Allergan USA, Inc. et al., v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision relating to obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) and patent-term adjustments.  The Court held that a claim that is first-filed and first-issued, but later-expiring, cannot be found invalid under the ODP doctrine based on a later-filed, later-issued, but earlier-expiring reference claim that shares the same priority date with that of the challenged claim.

On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In 2015, Contour IP Holding LLC (“Contour”) sued GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”), alleging that several GoPro products infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694.  In 2021, Contour filed a second lawsuit against GoPro, alleging that GoPro’s new products similarly infringe the asserted patents.  The asserted patents share substantially the same specification and are directed to portable, point-of-view (“POV”) video cameras.

In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The appellate decision, authored by Judge Cecchi, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, dismissed the appeal of Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. (PTOT), a Taiwanese optical filter manufacturer, for lack of standing. The CAFC held that PTOT failed to show an injury in fact that was concrete, particularized, and imminent, as required by the Constitution and the case law.

In Celanese Int’l Corp. v. ITC, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the on-sale bar such that the sale of a product made using a secret process would no longer invalidate later-sought claims on that process. 

In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd., issued July 31, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the AIA”) public disclosure exception to prior art, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). 

On July 26, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing-in-part decisions from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two inter partes reexamination proceedings that had found all claims of SoftView LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 7,461,353 (“the ’353 patent”) invalid under the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2024). In its decision, the CAFC upheld the validity of § 42.73(d)(3)(i) and the estoppel standard adopted in the regulation but held that the regulation applies only to new claims and amended claims.

On July 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granting a preliminary injunction that barred NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (“NeoGenomics”) from making, using, selling, advertising, or distributing its cancer assay test. Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Lab’ys, Inc., No. 2024-1324, at *2 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2024).

On July 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued new guidance on the patentability of AI-related inventions. Although the USPTO emphasized that its guidance does not change the law of 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent applicants and patent litigation defendants are likely to scrutinize the guidance for insights that will help them secure (or as the case may be, to invalidate) new AI-related patents.

On June 25, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing Amarin Pharma, Inc.’s induced infringement claims against Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.  Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., No. 2023-1169 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024).  The CAFC held that the totality of Amarin’s allegations plausibly stated a claim for induced infringement of patents allegedly covering Hikma’s generic version of Amarin’s Vascepa® product.

On July 9, 2024, Director Vidal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted Director Review in a set of three related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings between Petitioner Prime Time Toys LLC and Patent Owner Spin Master, Inc. (IPR2023-01339, IPR2023-01348, and IPR2023-01461).  In her decision, Director Vidal reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB’s”) denial of institution and remanded the case back to the Board for further proceedings.  This is a rare decision by Director Vidal, as she has only granted Director Review for six of the approximately thirty requests for Director Review decided so far in 2024.

While the patent litigation world is closely watching the Unified Patent Court, the Court of Justice is thinking about a matter that might yet again shake up the European patent litigation landscape.  In this update we discuss the February 22, 2024, Opinion Ag, C-339/22 of the Advocate General, Nicholas Emilio, in the case between BSH Hausgeräte GmbH and Electrolux AB, about cross-border jurisdiction in patent cases under the Brussels 1 bis Regulation.  If the Court of Justice follows the Advocate General’s opinion, cross-border infringement cases before national European courts may make a serious comeback.  This, in turn, could make national courts attractive again for cross-border patent matters.

On June 21, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing Beteiro, LLC’s (“Beteiro”) claims of patent infringement under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit claim nonpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The CAFC held that Beteiro’s patents—related to remote gaming and gambling activities—amounted to the practice of an abstract idea using conventional computer equipment and did not qualify for patent protection under the two-step framework of Alice/Mayo.

On June 17, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Case No. 1:23-cv-11780-FDS, Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, granting a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant EOFlow’s use of alleged trade secrets. Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2024). In its decision, the CAFC found that the district court had abused its discretion in weighing the equitable factors governing preliminary injunctions and in defining the set of information eligible for trade secret protection.

On June 10, 2024, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Amneal defendants’ motion for partial judgment on their counterclaims in a Hatch-Waxman dispute, and ordered the Teva plaintiffs to delist certain inhaler patents from the Orange Book. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, No. 23-cv-20964 (SRC) __ F. Supp. 3d __ (D.N.J. June 10, 2024).

On May 21, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit” or “court”) issued an en banc opinion, affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial, and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision that the prior art, including U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 (“Lian”) did not render unpatentable Appellee GM Global Technology Operations LLC’s (“GM”) U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625 (the “D’625 patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, __F.4th__, 2024 WL 2280728 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024). The en banc court affirmed the Board’s § 102 decision of no anticipation but vacated and remanded its § 103 decision of nonobviousness because the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test. Id. 

On May 20, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to deny recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”), as well as recovery from plaintiff’s counsel. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) separately sued DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) and Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“SXM”), as well as eight other defendants, for patent infringement in December 2013. DISH and SXM (collectively, “Appellants”) sent letters to Dragon’s counsel explaining that their products do not practice the asserted claims and that a reasonable pre-suit investigation would have shown that. Ignoring the letters, Dragon continued to pursue its lawsuits.

On May 9, 2024, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied the Petition for inter partes review of Luminex International Co., Ltd (“Luminex”), under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), finding that Luminex filed the Petition more than one year after the date on which a real party in interest was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent. Luminex Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Signify Holdings B.V., IPR2024-00101, Paper 10 (PTAB May 9, 2024).

On May 2, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated an amended final judgment of patent infringement entered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against NetScout Systems, Inc. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., No. 2022-2064. The CAFC’s decision was based on its affirmance of parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions finding the asserted patent claims unpatentable as obvious.

On May 1, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Case No. 2 6:19-cv-00628-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright, granting dismissal for lack of constitutional standing. Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024). In its decision, the CAFC found that plaintiff patentee retained an exclusionary right under the asserted patent and that this was sufficient to establish standing.

On April 15, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Eastern District of Virginia finding that (i) a trademark applicant’s applied-for design was functional and therefore unregistrable and (ii) applicant failed to establish the acquired distinctiveness required for trade dress registrability. TBL Licensing, LLC v. Vidal, No. 23-1150, 2024 WL 1609096 (4th Cir. Apr. 15, 2024).

On March 27, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion, affirming a United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “district court”) decision relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,676,411 (the “’411 patent”); 7,813,996 (the “’996 patent”); 6,766,304 (the “’304 patent”); and 6,772,132 (the “’132 patent”), (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The district court held the asserted claims of the ’411 and ’996 patents invalid, and a jury found the asserted claims of the ’304 and ’132 patents valid and infringed and awarded $6,610,985 in damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Brumfield, Tr. for Ascent Tr. v. IBG LLC, No. 2022-1630, __F.4th__, 2024 WL 1292151 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024). 

On April 4, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In October 2021, AI Visualize, Inc. accused Nuance Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397. The asserted patents share substantially the same specification and are directed to the visualization of medical scans.