In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent decision, Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless (Sept. 3, 2025), follows last year’s similar outcome in American Honda, GM, Nissan
Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.
Background
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia.
Prosecution history estoppel may narrow the scope of a claim that was unamended during prosecution, if another closely related claim is amended or cancelled during prosecution.
In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, the Federal Circuit held that it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review a decision by the district court in the Southern District of New York not to modify an arbitral award of patent royalties. Though the Appellant, Accorda Therapeutics, Inc., presented a first ground to modify
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes various key issues in patent litigation, including the role of applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), standing, and obviousness.
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes lexicography in the context of claim construction.
This case[1] addresses declaratory judgments of non-infringement in relation to subject-matter jurisdiction and the district court’s refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
This Federal Circuit Opinion[1] analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures.
This case[1] involves an appeal from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Regeneron) efforts to prevent defendants from marketing biosimilar versions of EYLEA®, a drug used to treat eye diseases, by asserting patent infringement. In particular, the Federal Circuit addressed issues of personal jurisdiction, preliminary injunctions, and patent validity.
