Posts in IP News

Knobbe Martens is seeking a Patent Scientist in Computer Science/Electrical Engineering. Knobbe Martens provides an opportunity for engineers and scientists to further their professional growth and career development in exciting, challenging ways. Put your technical degree to work on issues involving science, technology, and the law. Candidates will assist with the successful procurement of patent protection for innovative technologies, evaluate the designs of new products, and assist with the evaluation of competitor products.

Arnold & Porter is an international law firm with 16 offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia that provides sophisticated regulatory, litigation, and transactional services across multiple industries. Arnold & Porter has an opening for a Senior Manager of IP Administration in the Washington, DC office. The Senior Manager of IP Administration oversees the firmwide IP Prosecution (Patent and Trademark) practice.

A magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware today issued a Report and Recommendation to grant a motion by VideoAmp, Inc. to dismiss The Nielsen Company (US) LLC’s complaint against it for infringement of Nielsen’s patents related to audience measurement systems because the patents are directed to ineligible subject matter… According to today’s opinion, the ‘402 patent is “generally directed to associating identified user data with media being displayed.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Wednesday granted a case-dispositive motion for judgment in favor of Apple Inc., finding the single patent claim asserted by Immervision, Inc., invalid for lack of enablement. In a memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Immervision’s claim was an impermissible “single-means claim,” a seldom-invoked doctrine of patent law. The ruling, which Judge Noreika noted would be case-dispositive, concluding the patent infringement suit that Immervision had brought against Apple.

The UK Supreme Court today issued a landmark judgment on AI patentability that is likely to impact all software patents going forward. The decision in Emotional Perception v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks primarily held that the approach taken in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371; [2007] Bus LR 634; [2007] RPC 7 (Aerotel) should no longer be followed. Under Aerotel, courts and examiners consider a four-step test for assessing whether a claim is excluded from patent eligibility: 1) properly construe the claim, 2) Identify the actual/ alleged contribution, 3) Ask whether the contribution is excluded and 4) check if the contribution is technical.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Ingevity Corporation v. BASF Corporation, affirming a jury verdict that found Ingevity liable for unlawful tying under federal antitrust laws. On appeal, the CAFC upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision to deny Ingevity’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). As a result, the ruling included an award of more than $84 million in trebled damages to BASF Corporation (BASF). Judge Lourie authored the unanimous opinion, joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham.

On Tuesday, news reports indicated that U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced the Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting (CLEAR) Act into Congress. If enacted as drafted, the bill would establish mandatory reporting requirements for companies developing artificial intelligence (AI) models that are trained using original works that are protected under U.S. copyright law, and would create an additional cause of action for copyright owners alleging that generative AI developers failed to give such notice with respect to their works.

During a Subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick confirmed to Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that he does not plan to implement his proposal to charge patent holders a percentage their patents’ value. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee held the hearing primarily to as Lutnick questions about issues surrounding broadband deployment funding. Coons, however, took the opportunity to ask Lutnick about a proposal first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July 2025 to charge a 1%-5% patent “tax” on the value of granted U.S. patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a decision that affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a patent dispute between Maquet Cardiovascular LLC and Abiomed Inc. The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that certain claims of one Maquet patent were not infringed by Abiomed’s Impella heart pumps, but revived Maquet’s infringement allegations on five other patents after finding the district court had improperly construed key claim terms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in part reversed a district court’s decision upholding GoTV Streaming, LLC’s patents as eligible, finding instead that they were invalid under Section 101. While the opinion, authored by Judge Taranto, also reversed the district court’s finding that the claims were invalid for indefiniteness, the panel found they were directed to an abstract idea and therefore vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no inducement and its denial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages, ordering the district court to enter judgment for Netflix, Inc., ending the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling that six patents owned by Innovaport LLC are invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit agreed that the patents, which are directed to systems and methods for providing in-store product location information, claimed an abstract idea without adding a sufficient inventive concept to make them patent-eligible.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) calls for a federal framework for deploying self-driving cars to replace the state patchwork negatively impacting U.S. dominance in the field; a major apparel industry organization releases a study showing that nearly half of counterfeit products test positively for high levels of hazardous chemicals; Novartis issues guidance calling for its first annual operating profit loss in a decade due to patent expirations to blockbusters Entresto and Xolair; and more.

he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a Western District of Texas decision granting Walmart, Inc. summary judgment that Q Technologies’ content sharing patents are invalid as patent ineligible. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie. Q Technologies owns U.S. Patent 9,635,108, 10,567,473 and 10,594,774, all of which are titled “Systems and Methods for Content Sharing Using Uniquely Generated Identifiers” and share a common specification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Tricam Industries, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. The decision held that Tricam’s ladders did not infringe Little Giant’s patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the district court correctly construed the key claim term “cavity.”