Category Archives: Patent Eligibility

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…

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…

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…

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., 127 F.4th 348 (Fed. Cir. 2025)

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit in Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. left the application of the reverse doctrine of equivalents hanging on by a thread. While the CAFC found Steuben’s RDOE arguments compelling, it ultimately held that resolving the RDOE issue was not necessary to determine that the district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement was improper.
Continue reading…