IP UPDATE

Too late to help: Inventorship fix fails to revive forfeited argument

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, concluding that the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 does not bar the application of forfeiture principles in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and that a patent owner that fails to timely raise an antedating theory during an IPR may forfeit reliance on a later corrected inventorship to resurrect that theory. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1173; -1174 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Implicit owns patents directed to content rendering that originally named Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley as co-inventors. Sonos filed IPR petitions against both patents, asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, primarily based on Janevski, which had an effective prior art date of December 11, 2001.

To avoid Janevski as prior art, Implicit argued that the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice before December 11, 2001. It contended that Balassanian and Bradley conceived of the inventions and collaborated with another engineer, Guy Carpenter, to implement the invention prior to December 2001. Implicit argued that Carpenter’s work inured to the benefit of the named inventors, thereby antedating Janevski. The Board rejected Implicit’s argument and found the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over Janevski. The Board found Implicit’s evidence insufficient to establish conception and communication of the invention by Carpenter in a manner that would support an earlier reduction to practice.

Following the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew addressing the Appointments Clause as applied to IPR proceedings, the case was remanded to permit Director review. While proceedings were ongoing, Implicit sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to add Carpenter as a co-inventor. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the request and issued certificates of correction in August 2022. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Board to determine what impact, if any, the corrections had on the prior final written decisions. The Board concluded that equitable doctrines, including forfeiture, precluded Implicit from relying on the corrected inventorship to advance a new antedating theory. Implicit appealed.

The appeal presented two principal questions:

Whether the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under § 256 forecloses application of forfeiture principles in an IPR proceeding.
Whether the Board abused its discretion in finding that Implicit forfeited its right to assert a new antedating theory based on corrected inventorship.

Implicit argued that § 256 contains no temporal limitation and that corrections operate retroactively, requiring the Board to revisit its unpatentability determinations once Carpenter was added as an inventor. Sonos and the USPTO countered that Implicit had litigated the IPRs on a single inventorship theory and waited until after adverse final written decisions to change course.

The Federal Circuit affirmed on both grounds.

First, the Federal Circuit found that forfeiture principles may apply notwithstanding the retroactive effect of § 256. Although [...]

Continue Reading

USPTO signals new emphasis on US manufacturing in IPR and PGR institution decisions

by Lauren Hong | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Memorandum on March 11, 2026, signaling that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board may place increased weight on domestic manufacturing activity and the interests of small businesses when deciding whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post grant review (PGR).

The America Invents Act (AIA) established IPR and PGR proceedings as mechanisms for challenging the validity of issued patents before the Board. In establishing the framework for institution decisions, the statute directs the USPTO Director to consider broader policy concerns, including the impact on the US economy, the integrity of the patent system, and the efficient administration of the USPTO.

The Memorandum highlights concerns regarding the decline of US manufacturing, particularly in the electronics and computer sectors. Citing government studies, the USPTO notes that the offshoring of key industries has contributed to economic and national security vulnerabilities. According to the USPTO, these developments bear directly on the Director’s statutory obligation to consider the economic effects of Board institution decisions.

While some stakeholders contend that IPR and PGR proceedings protect US manufacturers and small businesses from weak patents, the USPTO observed that many of the most frequent petitioners are large companies that report little domestic manufacturing activity and have not made meaningful investments in US production. According to the Memorandum, this data prompted the USPTO to question whether the current discretionary institution framework adequately accounts for the interests of companies that do invest in domestic manufacturing.

As a result, the USPTO announced that certain factors related to US manufacturing and small businesses may now inform discretionary institution determinations. The USPTO encourages parties to address these considerations explicitly in their discretionary briefing.

When evaluating whether to institute an IPR or PGR, the Director may consider:

Whether the products accused of infringement in parallel litigation are manufactured in the United States or tied to domestic manufacturing investments.
Whether the patent owner produces competing products in the US.
Whether the petitioner qualifies as a small business that has been sued for patent infringement.

The Memorandum clarifies that manufacturing considerations are not limited to final assembly but may also encompass the production of components and situations in which products manufactured domestically are later processed abroad. For method claims, the relevant product for this analysis will be the device used to perform the claimed method.

These considerations apply to all to all IPRs and PGRs in which the due date for a patent owner discretionary brief has not yet elapsed.

Separately recited structures must be separately present in accused device

by Ashley K. Justice | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained (again) that when a claim separately recites multiple structural limitations, infringement requires separate corresponding structures. A single component that sequentially or multifunctionally performs the claimed functions is not enough. Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., Case No. 24-2001 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (Lourie, Hughes, Freeman, JJ.)

Magnolia Medical sued Kurin for infringement of two patents directed to devices designed to reduce contamination of blood samples by skin microbes during venipuncture. The claimed devices divert the initial portion of blood, which is most susceptible to contamination, into a separate reservoir before collecting the remainder of the sample. Kurin manufactures the Kurin Lock, which separates the initial blood sample from the remaining sample using a porous plug. That plug initially functions as a vent, allowing air to escape, and then expands as it absorbs blood, closing its pores and forming a seal.

The representative claim of one of the asserted patents recites a device comprising a fluid reservoir “at least partially defined by a seal member and a vent.” The representative claim of the other patent recites a “diverter.”

During claim construction, the district court construed “diverter” as a means‑plus‑function term under § 112(f). Because the Kurin Lock lacked a corresponding diverter structure, the parties stipulated noninfringement of that patent.

The district court did not expressly construe the “seal” and “vent” limitations of the other patent at Markman. At trial, however, the jury found that Kurin infringed that patent.

Kurin moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that it did not infringe because the Kurin Lock did not include separate seal and vent structures. Instead, a single porous plug performed both functions at separate times. The district court agreed and granted JMOL of no infringement. Magnolia appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Magnolia’s argument that the district court had improperly adopted a new claim construction at the JMOL stage. While courts may not introduce a materially different construction after trial, they may elaborate on what is inherent in the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim. The Federal Circuit reiterated its prior holdings that when a claim separately lists structural limitations, the plain and ordinary meaning requires separate corresponding structures. Here, the district court merely clarified that requirement, it did not change the construction.

The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claim required separate structures. The use of “comprising,” the introduction of “a” before both “seal” and “vent,” and the use of “and” between them all pointed to distinct components. The specification further reinforced that the seal and vent were described as separate structures.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s construction of “diverter” as a means plus function limitation. Although the claim did not use the word “means,” Kurin successfully showed that the term failed to recite sufficient structure, triggering § 112(f).

Practice note: This case is a reminder that when multiple structural elements are separately recited in a claim, courts are likely to require [...]

Continue Reading

Not so fast, Daubert: Expert report OK after all

by Dexter Hamilton | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s exclusion of the plaintiff’s damages expert, finding that a proffered royalty base tied to unaccused products may be permissible when supported by a causal connection to the accused technology. The Federal Circuit vacated the resulting orders denying discovery and granting summary judgment for lack of a remedy. Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 24-2296 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (Moore, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

Exafer sued Microsoft for patent infringement based on features of Microsoft’s Azure platform. After Exafer served its expert reports, Microsoft filed a Daubert motion, and the district court excluded Exafer’s damages expert because she used unaccused virtual machines as the royalty base. Exafer moved to reopen fact and expert discovery to present an alternative theory, which the district court denied. The district court subsequently granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment based on the absence of a remedy. Exafer appealed all three orders.

Exafer argued that the district court erred in excluding its damages theory, which relied on Microsoft’s virtual machine pricing rate to estimate the value Microsoft placed on the accused features. Exafer contended that the district court misapplied the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision in Enplas Display Device v. Seoul Semiconductor by effectively creating a categorical bar against considering noninfringing activities in a reasonable royalty analysis.

The Federal Circuit agreed, explaining that in Enplas the unaccused products had no causal connection to the accused infringing products. Here, by contrast, the Court found such a connection: Microsoft’s own documents showed that Exafer’s royalty base was tied to a causal connection between the accused Azure features and the operation of virtual machines. The Court concluded that Exafer’s damages expert valued the accused features based on the incremental virtual machines Microsoft could host because of those efficiency gains.

The Federal Circuit rejected Microsoft’s argument that Enplas categorically precluded applying a royalty rate to sales of unaccused products to prevent a patent owner from “expanding its patent monopoly to unpatented products.” The Court explained that the analysis must be conducted on a case-by-case basis to determine how the parties would value the accused technology in the hypothetical negotiation. As an example, the Court noted that claims directed to methods of manufacture commonly use the unaccused product produced by the claimed method as the royalty base.

German Federal Court of Justice reinforces strict willing licensee standard in SEP litigation

by Dr. Henrik Holzapfel and Dr. Laura Katharina Woll, LL.M. | Mar 19, 2026 | EU Update, Patents

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) established requirements for a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) defense against injunction claims based on standard-essential patents (SEPs). VoiceAge v. HMD, Case No. KZR 10/25 (FCJ Jan. 27, 2026) (Rol-off, Deichfuß, Tolkmitt, Vogt-Beheim, Kochendörfer, JJ.)

Consistent with its earlier decisions, the FCJ adopted an approach that imposes strict procedural and substantive obligations on implementers in FRAND licensing negotiations. This approach reinforces a demanding framework for implementers. The FCJ rejected the implementer’s FRAND defense in this case.

The case attracted considerable attention because the European Commission, acting as the EU competition law authority, intervened by submitting an amicus curiae brief and presenting oral argument before the FCJ. The Commission’s participation underscored the ongoing de-bate over the proper interpretation of FRAND obligations under Article 102 TFEU and, more particularly, the framework established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE.

Willing licensee standard and the obligation to provide security

The FCJ found the implementer to be an unwilling licensee since it unduly delayed its responses to the SEP owner’s license offers and failed to provide adequate security in a timely manner. According to the FCJ, the implementer must promptly enter into negotiations with the SEP owner regarding licensing terms and submit a counteroffer, even if the SEP owner’s initial license offer was not FRAND-compliant. During licensing negotiations, the implementer should actively and constructively engage in efforts to conclude a FRAND-compliant license agreement.

Similar to the recent Statement of Interest by the US Department of Justice and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in US patent litigation between Collision Communications and Samsung, the FCJ underscored the importance of injunctive relief, including for nonpracticing entities (NPEs) and with respect to SEPs. According to the FCJ, only exclusive rights allow an invention to be subject to market processes, and the availability of damages claims does not alter this fundamental principle.

The FCJ cited case law from the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and from national courts in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to support its reasoning. Taken together, these authorities demonstrate a growing consensus within the European judiciary toward interpreting FRAND obligations as establishing a high threshold for a successful FRAND defense. Consequently, FRAND jurisprudence is developing across Europe in a direction that is increasingly strict for implementers.

The FCJ emphasized that if the SEP owner rejects the counteroffer, the implementer must promptly provide adequate security. In this case, the implementer did not adequately do so because it did not even provide security corresponding to the royalties under its own relatively low counteroffer. However, the FCJ did not provide specific guidance on how to determine the required amount of security. The lower court relied on the amount of the SEP owner’s last offer, but the FCJ did not comment on this offer because the security that the implementer provided was too low.

Unlike lower instance courts, however, the FCJ emphasized in an obiter dictum that providing security is sufficient [...]

Continue Reading