Posts in IP News

Seven retired federal judges have filed an amicus brief supporting U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman’s Supreme Court petition seeking review of her case against CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore for what she has dubbed Moore’s “unlawful” removal of Newman from her duties on the court. The judges’ amicus brief argues that “permitting misconduct of the sort alleged here to proceed unchecked and unexamined by the federal courts poses a grave threat to the independence of all federal judges, particularly the 50% of judges who are 68 or older.”

Today, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) published the third edition of its Congressional Innovation Scorecard, which provides a measure of each lawmaker in the U.S. Congress in terms of their impact on the nation’s intellectual property (IP) system. Although this year’s scorecard acknowledges higher numbers of pro-copyright bills introduced into Congress, it concludes that members of Congress are still failing to engage fully and effectively on national IP issues to the detriment of America’s future as an innovation leader.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CPC Patent Technologies petitioned the Court in March of this year asking the Justices to consider the question: “Whether the Federal Circuit can affirm a PTAB decision without opinion in contravention of the clear statutory requirement of an ‘opinion’ when reviewing such decisions.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Rebecca Curtin, leaving in place a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that barred her from opposing the trademark registration for “RAPUNZEL” for dolls and toy figures. The Court declined to review the CAFC’s holding that a consumer lacks the statutory entitlement to oppose a trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 because such consumer interests fall outside the commercial zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. is puzzling—and revealing. On its face, the case presents a narrow question: whether a generic drug manufacturer can be held liable for inducing patent infringement based on how it markets a product approved under a so-called “skinny label.” The dispute turns on whether Hikma’s conduct plausibly encouraged physicians to prescribe its generic drug for a patented use. But the Court’s decision to grant certiorari reflects something broader: a continued focus on lowering drug prices through faster generic entry, even at the risk of undermining the patent incentives that make pharmaceutical innovation possible.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, reversing the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and patent invalidity claims. The district court had found that Dr. Robert Cornell and several other defendants misappropriated four trade secrets related to cosmetic penile implants, breached a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), and that two patents were invalid for failure to name an inventor. The CAFC reversed the denial of JMOL on those claims but affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL for the defendants with respect to counterfeiting liability.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit reverses a California district court’s denial of JMOL on trade secret and patent inventorship claims related to a cosmetic penile implant; the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously advances a bill to reauthorize the National Quantum Initiative; the Court of Justice for the European Union clarifies the scope of the pastiche exception for new works sampling copyrighted works to engage in artistic, critical or humorous dialogue; and more.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) announced today that it will be extending the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) until June 1, 2026, to gather additional information and continue evaluating the program’s effectiveness. The Pilot was first announced in October 2025 and is meant to “evaluate the impact of sharing the results of an automated search prior to examination of an application.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, reversing the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity of Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s headache treatment patents. The district court found that the asserted claims were invalid for failing to satisfy both the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, but the CAFC found the district court’s grant of JMOL improper on both counts. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Cunningham and District Judge Andrews.

A number of groups and individuals self-described as “representing consumers, patients, health care providers, and academic experts in pharmaceutical policy and patent law” have submitted a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee urging members to quickly advance the “Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition  (ETHIC) Act,’’ which was introduced in the House of Representatives last May by Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX) along with two other Republicans and four Democrats.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Tuesday in Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of Definitive Holdings’ patent.  The district court found that the asserted claims of the patent owned were invalid under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Dyk.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision authored by Chief Judge Moore delivering a partial win for patent owner VLSI Technology against Intel Corporation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Intel’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836, titled “Multi-core System on Chip,” and also struck the damages theories of one of VLSI’s expert’s.

In high-stakes patent litigation, post-trial motions are often dismissed as routine clean-up—procedural volleys after the real battle has been fought. That framing does not hold in the battle between Optis Wireless and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas. The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury’s verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound. When viewed holistically, the record suggests there was meaningful error—or at least confusion—between in the legal standards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. Against that backdrop, plaintiffs’ position that it is entitled to either JMOL or a new trial requires fresh consideration.

Studebaker Brackett PLLC (SB) is looking for a motivated, experienced, and highly skilled patent attorney or agent to join its team on a full-time or part-time exclusive basis. SB offers a positive, collaborative team environment; a client-centered, relationship-focused approach; remote working options; a competitive salary; and a benefits package.