Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2023-1475, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)

Our Case of the Week is a high-stakes appeal from an inter partes review concerning a patent titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices.” The patent, filed in 1999, “relates to simple input devices for computers . . . intended for use with 3-D graphically intensive activities, and operating by optically sensing a human input to a display screen or other object and/or the sensing of human positions or orientations.” The invention uses TV cameras whose output is analyzed and used as input to a computer to provide information concerning the objects held by a person.READ MORE
 

IQRIS Techs. v. Point Blank Enter., Inc. & Nat’l Molding, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2062 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025)

In an appeal from a district court summary judgment ruling, the Court vacated a district court finding of no literal or equivalent infringement of two IQRIS patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,567 (“the ’567 patent”) and 8,256,020 (“the ’020 patent”). Both patents share a common specification that relates to quick-release systems or “pull cords” on tactical vests.

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1512, -1513, -1514 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025)

In appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the board had erred in finding three patents owned by AliveCor, Inc. were unpatentable as obvious.

Immunogen, Inc. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Appeal No. 2023-1762 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2025)

In ImmunoGen’s second round before the Federal Circuit with this case, the Court affirmed the district court’s holding that ImmunoGen’s patent application was not patentable. Immunogen had originally sued the federal government for refusing to grant a patent on an application directed to an antibody-drug, conjugate.

Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025)

In an appeal from an inter partes review decision that had upheld the challenged claims of Jadi Cell’s U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, the Court affirmed. The ’176 patent claims stem cells with a specific cell marker expression profile, produced by placing a subepithelial layer of mammalian umbilical cord tissue in direct contact with a growth substrate.

Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Appeal No. 2023-2077 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2025)

In an appeal from a district court dismissal of a complaint that untimely sought Director review under United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021), the Court affirmed. In Arthrex, the Supreme Court held that the then-unreviewable status of decisions by administrative judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Hollyren Cosmetics Co. Ltd, Appeal No. 2023-1245 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025)

In an appeal from a Section 337 decision of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a determination that patent owner Lashify had failed to satisfy the economic prong of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)’s “domestic industry” requirement for its eyelash extension utility and design patents.

Editors:‎

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe
Jason Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributors:

Mario Delgato, Associate

Ann Bernert, Associate

Jeff Liao, Associate

Elizabeth Graves, Associate