Introduction The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may no longer be accepting inter partes review (IPR) petitions for patents that have been in force for more than six years, and there may be nothing you can do about it. In In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., the...
On November 25, 2025, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. obtained US Patent No. 12,482,824 (“the ’824 patent”), titled “Positive Electrode Plate and Lithium-Ion Battery Comprising the Positive Electrode Plate.” According to the ’824 patent, mechanical damage such as...
We previously reported on the risks that an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner undertakes when advancing a broad claim construction, e.g., one that the patent owner is advancing but that the petitioner is resisting in a parallel district court case. See PTAB Panels...
The Federal Circuit recently clarified language in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e) such that prior work by a subset of inventors of a later application may be available as prior art to that later application. Those provisions establish as prior art matter that was...
In Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Holdings, LLC, Nos. 2024-1072, 2024-1125 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued an opinion in the case of Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1097 (August 28, 2025) (nonprecedential) regarding prosecution laches. The opinion did not address the...
PV Law LLP named by Patexia Insights as Top 100 Best Performing Law Firm at the PTAB for 2025 and a Top 100 Most Active Law Firm at the PTAB for 2025. We are honored to receive this recognition for four consecutive years. Congratulations to the PV Law team!
On May 9, 2025, First Solar, Inc. (“First Solar”) filed a lawsuit against Canadian Solar Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Canadian Solar”), alleging infringement U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074 (“the ’074 patent”). First Solar, Inc. v. Canadian Solar Inc., Case No....
In Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v. IFIT, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently analyzed a straightforward mechanical invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and clarified the analysis that should be used when a § 101 challenge to a claim is raised. Powerblock Holdings, Inc. sued...
The Federal Circuit recently found that a district court abused its discretion when it struck portions of a patentee’s expert infringement report as allegedly including an infringement theory absent from the plaintiff’s contentions. The district court found that the...