John Battaglia

Judge Paul Michel (Ret.)

John Battaglia s an accomplished first-chair trial lawyer, appellate lawyer, and former US Justice Department lawyer who has successfully tried to verdict a broad array of civil and criminal cases. While the subject matter of his cases over the past 22-plus years has ranged from immigration to intellectual property, from guns, drugs, and violence to advanced electrical engineering, pharmaceuticals, and ice-hockey equipment, Mr. Battaglia's area of particular interest and expertise is patent litigation. Mr. Battaglia has successfully argued cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Federal, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. He argued and prevailed in In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litig. (Fed. Cir. 2015), a case involving numerous adverse issues and the first Federal Circuit case to address the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Teva v. Sandoz. For that victory, the legal press dubbed Mr. Battaglia and his team a "Legal Lion."


Posts by John Battaglia


The Price of Paice and Complexity: Rules, Standards and Facts for Post-Judgment Royalty Consideration

The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit permit prevailing patentees to obtain a higher royalty rate for an infringer’s post-judgment infringing sales. But whatever the reason, district …

AAM v. Neapco Misreads Federal Circuit Precedent to Create a New Section 101 Enablement-like Legal Requirement – Part II

As detailed in Part I of this article, the recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) misreads and misinterprets Supreme …

New Enablement-Like Requirements for 101 Eligibility: AAM v. Neapco Takes the Case Law Out of Context, and Too Far – Part I

With its recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020), and a 6-6 stalemate by the court’s active judges on …

An Emerging Section 101 Expansion to Section 112(a) Enablement? The Federal Circuit Should Stop It Now

The most dominant, divisive issue in patent law over the last decade—Section101-eligibility and the Supreme Court’s Mayo-Alice framework—appears to have just become more …

Bilski and Its Expansion of the Abstract Idea Exception: A Failure to Define

The Supreme Court's Bilski v. Kappos decision—which celebrated its 10th birthday this past weekend—still matters, even in the age of Mayo-Alice. For one thing, the …

It Is Time to Fix the Courts’ Section 101 Tests on ‘Directed to …’ and ‘Abstract Ideas’—Whether in Chamberlain or Beyond (Part II)

As we concluded in Part I of this article, the courts are being called upon in The Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries, Inc to respond to an …

It Is Time to Fix the Courts’ Section 101 Tests on ‘Directed to …’ and ‘Abstract Ideas’—Whether in Chamberlain or Beyond (Part I)

The case of the “garage door opener,” The Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries, Inc., has received its share of attention. Rightly so. The case, after all, spotlights …

Flaws in the Supreme Court’s §101 Precedent and Available Ways to Correct Them

Amid the crush of patent-eligibility case law, see 35 U.S.C. §101, patent lawyers and even courts can lose sight of the key principles and precedents that serve …

Pandemics and the Need for U.S. Patent Laws That ‘Promote … Progress’ and Invention: The Federal Circuit, En Banc, Can Fix This

The COVID-19 crisis has once more highlighted the need for incentivizing investment and innovation—and thus, for patent laws that duly “promote” and protect such “progress,” precisely …

On Claim Construction, Predictability, and Patent Law Consistency: The Federal Circuit Needs to Vote En Banc

The Federal Circuit needs to go en banc more often. That is the unmistakable lesson not just in light of the Supreme Court’s recent denials of …