Irwin IP Case Of The Week


In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether claim language specifying a specific article of manufacture can limit the scope of a design patent, even if that article of manufacture is not actually illustrated in the figures. The Court found the answer to be

In the Right Place at the Wrong Time

Recently, the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) overturned a previous PTAB panel’s decision to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) and held that “service of a pleading asserting a claim alleging infringement triggers the one-year time period for a petitioner to file a petition

Apple’s Second Bite Might be a Little Too Late

Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and VirnetX Inc. (“VirnetX”) have been feuding over several patents relating to secured communications over the internet since 2010 when VirnetX sued Apple in district court. Apple argued that the patents were invalid as anticipated by or obvious in light of the prior art. Apple lost the

Schrodinger’s Case

On consecutive days two district courts faced the same question—does a patent infringement plaintiff who sued before establishing common ownership over a terminally disclaimed patent have standing?—but arrived at opposite answers. On July 25, 2019, the Eastern district of Pennsylvania held a case must be dismissed because such a plaintiff


Continuing its narrow application of Article III standing in inter partes review (“IPR”) appeals, the Federal Circuit recently held that General Electric Company (“GE”) lacked Article III standing to appeal the Final Written Decision of an IPR that it had instituted against United Technologies Corporation, determining that GE did not

Samsung Dodges Forum Selection Clause to File IPRs

A Southern District of New York Judge denied a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by plaintiff NuCurrent Inc. against defendant Samsung, which sought to enforce a forum selection clause— contained in a mutual non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) between the parties—to prohibit Samsung from initiating inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the

Trademark Applicant Gets FUCT

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction against registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks, set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), discriminated between speech based upon viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. Iancu, Under Sec’y of Commerce for Intellectual Prop. & Dir., Patent

When is a Patent Challenge Undeliverable?

Although neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night prevents the United States Postal Service from the swift completion of its appointed rounds, the Supreme Court has prevented it from challenging patents. In Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service et al., 587 U. S. ____ (2019),