IP UPDATE

The smoke has cleared – and so has your invalidity defense

by Jodi Benassi | Sep 25, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa issued an instructive decision clarifying the scope of statutory estoppel under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) following post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Intirion Corp. v. College Products, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4023-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Sept. 16, 2025) (Williams, J.)

Intirion brought a patent infringement suit against College Products, which responded by petitioning the Board for PGR, challenging the patents based on obviousness and indefiniteness. While the PGR was pending, the district court proceeded with claim construction and initially found the terms “level of smoke,” “amount of smoke,” and “dangerous condition” indefinite. Intirion moved for reconsideration, and College Products filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting invalidity. Intirion also sought a stay of the litigation pending the PGR outcome, which the court granted.

The Board instituted review of all claims. Initially, it found that neither party had requested express construction of any terms and adopted Intirion’s interpretation that “level of smoke” and “amount of smoke” meant “merely detecting smoke,” based on Intirion’s representations in the district court. In its final written decision (FWD), the Board acknowledged the district court’s indefiniteness findings but ultimately adopted the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine appropriate thresholds using known methods. Expert testimony persuaded the Board that defining the terms by their function was sufficiently definite under patent law.

After the Board upheld the claims, the district court found that College Products was estopped under 35 U.S.C. §325(e)(2) from asserting any invalidity grounds (including indefiniteness and obviousness) that were or reasonably could have been raised during the PGR. The district court explained that the AIA established a streamlined system allowing third parties to challenge the patentability of issued claims before the Board as a quicker and more cost-effective alternative to litigation. This structure is specifically designed to prevent challengers from getting multiple bites at the apple by raising the same or similar arguments in subsequent court proceedings.

College Products argued that estoppel should not apply because it filed its motion for partial summary judgment before the Board issued its FWD. The district court rejected this argument, explaining that the statutory language provides no exception based on timing and imposes a clear bar once the Board has issued a FWD. The district court also found that College Products’ position was inconsistent with applicable case law and noted that it failed to cite any contrary authority.

The district court further explained that it had intentionally deferred ruling on College Products’ motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity pending the outcome of the PGR proceedings. Once the PTAB issued its FWDs, College Products was estopped from further challenging the validity of the patents, including through its pending summary judgment motion, because it could have raised any such indefiniteness arguments during the PGR process.

Practice note: Unlike inter partes review (IPR), during PGR a petitioner can challenge patentability on grounds [...]

Continue Reading

DMCA safe harbor: Prelude to a Supreme Court encore?

by Jodi Benassi | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted in part and denied in part Capitol Records’ petition for reconsideration of the Court’s January 13, 2025, decision in Capitol Records v. Vimeo. In that ruling, the Court determined that Capitol Records had waived the argument that Vimeo’s encouragement of users to make infringing lip-dub videos may constitute a form of right and ability to control infringement – an apparent forfeiture of the safe harbor provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In its reconsideration decision, the Court removed a footnote regarding whether the “right and ability to control” argument was preserved for Supreme Court review. Capitol Records, LLC, et al. v. Vimeo, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 21-2949; -2974 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2025) (Leval, Parker, Merriam JJ.)

Capitol Records filed a petition for reconsideration of the Second Circuit’s decision, which found that Capitol had waived its argument under Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster. A central issue was application of the Grokster precedent, which addressed inducement of copyright infringement. Capitol Records argued that Vimeo’s encouragement of users to create infringing lip-dub videos constituted a “right and ability to control” infringement, potentially forfeiting the DMCA safe harbor protection.

In its earlier ruling, the Second Circuit found that Capitol Records had waived this argument by not adequately presenting it in the appellate brief, despite having discussed it in the fact section. The Court emphasized that the argument was not developed in the argument section of the brief and, in a footnote, noted that Capitol Records had acknowledged that the argument was foreclosed by a prior ruling. Capitol Records argued that its waiver was not of the Grokster-based theory of forfeiture of the safe harbor, but rather of a claim under Grokster for induced infringement. The Court was not persuaded, noting that Capitol Records’ opening brief made no distinction between a Grokster-based inducement claim and a Grokster-based theory for forfeiting DMCA safe harbor protection. As a result, the Court rejected Capitol Records’ argument that the Grokster-based theory had not been waived.

In its most recent ruling, the Second Circuit granted Capitol’s petition to remove language from a footnote in the Court’s prior ruling that suggested Capitol’s Grokster inducement theory, based on the “right and ability to control,” was barred from Supreme Court review.

Practice note: The Second Circuit’s decision to partially grant and deny the petition for reconsideration clarifies the procedural requirements for preserving arguments on appeal and reinforces the complexities of applying traditional copyright principles to digital platforms. As the case progresses, stakeholders in the music and technology industries should monitor developments and implications for the DMCA and copyright enforcement.

Oh brother: Draft settlement agreements carefully

by Ashley K. Justice | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim, the jury instructions accurately applied the sophisticated consumer exception to initial-interest confusion, and the district court properly submitted ambiguous contract language to the jury for interpretation. Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating LLC, Case No. 24-1289 (8th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Graza, Stras, Kobes, JJ.)

Brothers Tom and Robert Hoffmann were partners in Hoffmann Brothers. After Robert bought out Tom, they entered into a settlement agreement that included a four-year restriction barring Tom from using the name “Hoffmann” in connection with an HVAC business. After four years, Tom began using “Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC” (Hoffmann AC). Hoffmann AC’s advertising agency later mistakenly used pictures of Hoffmann Brothers. Hoffmann Brothers sued for trademark and copyright infringement. Hoffmann AC prevailed on some issues at summary judgment, and the jury reached a mixed verdict on the remaining claims. Both parties were denied attorneys’ fees, and Hoffmann Brothers appealed.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed that Hoffmann Brothers did not sufficiently prove damages for its copyright claim based on Hoffmann AC’s use of its photographs. Because the photographs were unregistered works, Hoffmann Brothers was required to prove actual damages and/or additional profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement. Hoffmann Brothers’ only evidence of actual damages was Hoffmann AC’s monthly fee paid to its marketing agency. The Court found that using the monthly fee was too speculative because it did not reflect the benefit to Hoffmann AC or the harm to Hoffmann Brothers. For evidence of additional profits, Hoffmann Brothers’ expert report failed to link the use of the photographs to Hoffmann AC’s gross revenue. The Court explained that the Hoffmann Brothers could have linked additional profits attributable to the use of the photographs by, for example, demonstrating that:

Hoffmann AC gained customers because of the ads.
The photographs actually influenced purchasing decisions.
There was spike in monthly revenue that coincided with use of the photographs.

Regarding Hoffmann Brothers’ trademark claim, the jury found that the names were not so similar as to cause confusion. Hoffmann Brothers appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its jury instructions. The Eighth Circuit rejected the argument, finding the instructions fair and legally adequate. The instruction was directed to the issue of initial-interest confusion (a concept not adopted by Missouri courts), which occurs when consumer confusion arises at the outset, even if no sale ultimately results. The Court explained that under Eighth Circuit precedent, a sophisticated consumer exception applies to this theory, meaning that consumers who exercise a high degree of care are less likely to be initially confused. Here, the district court instructed the jury to consider initial-interest confusion only if it found that Hoffmann Brothers’ customers were not sophisticated. While the Eighth Circuit acknowledged some hesitation about the assumption that sophisticated consumers are never susceptible to initial-interest [...]

Continue Reading

Penny for your characters? Victorian tropes not so striking or protectable

by Anisa Noorassa | Sep 18, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a copyright infringement claim finding that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged copying of protected characters. Anna Biani v. Showtime Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-3949 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Nguyen, Mendoza, Kernodle, JJ.)

Biani sued Showtime alleging that the series “Penny Dreadful” infringed on three original characters she created for an online role-playing forum. Biani claimed that Showtime incorporated various aspects of her characters into two of the show’s characters and alleged that the defendants had access to her work because of the similarities between the characters. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Biani failed to plausibly allege that Showtime had a reasonable opportunity to copy her work. The district court applied the extrinsic test for protectable material under copyright, filtering out characteristics considered to be stock aspects of the Victorian-era England genre, and found that any remaining similarities were not striking enough to preclude the possibility of independent creation. Biani was granted leave to amend but chose not to, leading to the dismissal of the case with prejudice. Biani appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Biani’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court explained that to state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly allege both ownership of a valid copyright and that the defendant copied protected aspects of the work, which includes factual copying and unlawful appropriation. Biani did not challenge the district court’s determination that she failed to plausibly allege evidence of access. Instead she argued that the similarities between the works were so striking as to preclude independent creation. While the panel concluded that the district court improperly filtered out unprotectable elements of the works, it found this error was harmless because Biani’s allegations were insufficient to plausibly infer copying. The Court found that any resemblance between the characters was not extensive enough to preclude the possibility of coincidence, independent creation, or prior common source.

The Ninth Circuit also held that Biani’s claim failed under the “unlawful appropriation” analysis, agreeing with the district court that Biani failed to allege substantial similarity in protectable expression. The Court applied the extrinsic test to assesses the objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements of the plaintiff’s expression. The Court found that many of the characteristics that Biani alleged were unique to her characters (such as their age, strength, beauty, and engagement in witchcraft) were actually unprotectable elements, common in the public domain, and a standard aspect of Victorian-era-based fiction. The Court thus concluded that Biani failed to allege substantial similarity in protectable expression and thus affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

Surprise? Last-minute new theory leads to new trial

by Dexter Hamilton | Sep 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a new trial after the defendant introduced a new noninfringement theory on the eve of trial based on test results it previously refused to produce, saying they were not necessary. Magēmā Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP, Case No. 2024-1342 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2025) (Moore, Stoll, Bumb, JJ.)

Magēmā owns a patent directed to a solution to desulfurize fuel used to power cargo ships. Magēmā entered into licensing discussions with Phillips, but after the parties failed to reach an agreement, Phillips modified its hydrotreater reactors to implement what Magēmā believed was an infringing desulfurization process. Magēmā sued.

The governing fuel standard required a flashpoint of at least 140 degrees, meaning fuel with a pre-hydroprocessing flashpoint below that threshold would not infringe. The parties disagreed on where at the refinery the flashpoint should be tested. Phillips provided data from one sampling point while Magēmā requested data from a location closer to the hydrotreater reactor. Phillips refused, citing safety concerns, and argued that Magēmā could estimate the flashpoint using an accepted formula. The district court denied Magēmā’s motion to compel, agreeing that the formula sufficed. However, after discovery closed, Phillips moved to supplement the summary judgment record with new flashpoint test results from a different sampling station. The district court denied the motion, finding Phillips had no reasonable explanation for failing to sample earlier, and that introducing the evidence late would be unduly prejudicial, especially since Phillips had previously said Magēmā could rely on the formula. Yet shortly before jury selection, Magēmā learned that Phillips intended to argue that the formula was inadequate and that only actual testing could prove infringement (evidence Magēmā lacked), effectively shifting the burden. Magēmā objected, but the district court overruled the objection.

At trial, Philips told the jury that the standard required actual flashpoint testing and that Magēmā could not prove infringement without test samples. Magēmā requested a curative instruction, which the district court denied. The district court also barred Magēmā from explaining why it had relied on a formula rather than actual testing data. The jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. Although the district court acknowledged that Phillips’ arguments were “improper and prejudicial,” it denied Magēmā’s motion for a new trial, finding that the misconduct did not affect the outcome. Magēmā appealed.

Phillips argued that Magēmā had failed to timely object, but the Federal Circuit disagreed, citing to Magēmā’s pre-jury selection objection, request for a curative instruction, and motion for a new trial. Finding that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial, the Federal Circuit agreed that Phillips’ argument was “improper and prejudicial,” characterizing it as a “bait-and-switch.”

Because the jury returned a general verdict form, the Federal Circuit could not determine the basis for the noninfringement finding and, given the repeated emphasis Phillips placed on its improper argument, the Court concluded it would be unjust to let the [...]

Continue Reading