Search for Term

Category Archives:

The Machine May Learn, But the Patent Won’t Survive: Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing in Recentive v. Fox

Posted by

On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for both panel and en banc rehearing in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., leaving in place its earlier precedential decision in the matter that applying standard machine learning techniques to a new environment is not enough to qualify for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s denial confirms its first major precedential decision on machine learning patents, suggesting a shift in how AI claims will be treated under § 101.

Continue reading…

LookSmart, Think Abstract: Google Dodges Suit on Section 101 Grounds

Posted by

On June 26, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision in LookSmart Group v. Google LLC, granting Google’s motion to dismiss LookSmart’s infringement lawsuit. The court found that the claims of LookSmart’s patent were directed to an abstract idea and lacked the requisite “inventive concept” required for patent eligibility.

Continue reading…

Silence is Not Always Golden: Equitable Estoppel in Patent Infringement Cases

Posted by

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., addressing the doctrine of equitable estoppel in patent litigation. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had barred Fraunhofer’s claims due to its five-year delay in filing suit. While the Federal Circuit agreed that Fraunhofer’s silence was potentially misleading, it emphasized that equitable estoppel in patent infringement cases also requires a clear showing of reliance by the accused infringer. Sirius XM failed to meet that burden, making summary judgment inappropriate. Continue reading…

Federal Circuit Clarifies Provisional Rights: No Patent, No Payback

Posted by

Patent owners are granted a limited monopoly over their inventions, and with that monopoly comes a bundle of rights. These rights fall into two broad categories: exclusive rights and provisional rights. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that clarifies the requirements for patentees to claim provisional rights: they only attach if the patent actually issues before it expires.
Continue reading…

The Twist? No Access, No Infringement

Posted by

Gregorini v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00406-SSS-JC, 2024 WL 5264949 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2024)

For a plaintiff to allege copyright infringement, they must prove two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) the defendant wrongfully copied from the plaintiff’s valid copyright. To establish the second element, the plaintiff must show both that the alleged infringer actually copied the copyrighted work and that they copied a sufficiently significant amount of copyrighted material from the plaintiff’s work so that the parties’ works are substantially similar. Because both sub-parts must be proven, failure to establish either actual copying or substantial similarity is fatal to a copyright infringement claim.

Continue reading…