IP UPDATE

No specifics, no case? DTSA trade secret disclosure timing differs from CUTSA

by Jodi Benassi | Aug 21, 2025 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a district court abused its discretion by striking several of the plaintiff’s trade secrets, concluding that the court improperly relied on Rule 12(f) and failed to support dismissal as a discovery sanction under Rule 37. The Court emphasized that the fact-specific question of “reasonable particularity” in Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) cases is generally reserved for summary judgment or trial, not for resolution at the discovery stage. Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-16093 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) (VanDyke, Johnstone, JJ., Christensen, Dist. J.)

Quintara and Ruifeng are DNA sequencing analysis companies that engaged in a business arrangement. The relationship soured when Quintara alleged that Ruifeng locked Quintara out of its office, took possession of its equipment, and hired Quintara employees. Quintara sued Ruifeng under the DTSA for misappropriating nine trade secrets.

During discovery, Ruifeng moved for a protective order to pause proceedings until Quintara identified its trade secrets with reasonable particularity, as required by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 2019.210, the California version of the DTSA. The district court agreed with Ruifeng and ordered Quintara to disclose each allegedly misappropriated trade secret with reasonable particularity. Quintara filed an amended trade secret disclosure, but Ruifeng found it deficient and again moved to halt discovery. To resolve the impasse, the district court gave Ruifeng a choice: either accept the disclosure and proceed with discovery, or move to strike the disclosure, withhold discovery, and risk consequences if the motion failed. Ruifeng chose the latter and moved to strike Quintara’s trade secrets in the disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f).

Citing its broad discretion over discovery and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16, the district court granted Ruifeng’s motion, holding that Quintara failed to comply with § 2019.210. As a result, the court struck nine of the 11 trade secrets from the disclosure, effectively dismissing Quintara’s misappropriation claims as to those trade secrets. Quintara appealed.

The question before the Ninth Circuit was when in the litigation, and with what level of particularity, a plaintiff under the DTSA must identify its alleged trade secrets. The Court began by noting that CUTSA requires a plaintiff to identify the alleged trade secret with “reasonable particularity” before discovery begins. In contrast, the federal DTSA imposes no such requirement regarding the timing or scope of trade secret identification. Instead, DTSA cases proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not require plaintiffs to specify their trade secrets with particularity at the outset of the case. The Court explained that under the DTSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the claimed trade secret is described with sufficient particularity to distinguish it from general knowledge in the industry or from the specialized knowledge of those skilled in the trade. At an early stage of litigation, particularly when no discovery has yet occurred, it is not fatal to a plaintiff’s claim if the trade secret disclosure [...]

Continue Reading

Feel the burn: Mechanical improvement is patent eligible under § 101

by Dexter Hamilton | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., Case No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi, JJ.)

PowerBlock sued iFit for allegedly infringing its patent related to dumbbells. IFit moved to dismiss the claims under § 101. The district court found that the challenged claim was broadly directed to the idea of automated weight stacking, and that it purported to cover any system having a few basic components for selecting and adjusting weights, rather than describing a specific method or design for how the system actually worked. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent eligibility, the district court determined that all but one claim of the asserted patent were ineligible under § 101. PowerBlock appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in its Alice step one analysis under § 101. The Court explained that the crux of the district court’s incorrect determination was that the challenged claim was directed to the abstract idea of automated weight stacking, which in turn led to misplaced preemption concerns. The Court found instead that the claim was limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement – namely, a particular type of selectorized dumbbell featuring nested left and right weight plates, a handle, a movable selector, and an electric motor operatively connected to the selector that adjusts the weight based on user input.

Distinguishing the challenged claim from prior cases in which claims were found ineligible, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the claim was directed to an “eligible mechanical invention” and “focused on a specific mechanical improvement,” not merely an abstract or generalized concept. The Court also rejected iFit’s argument that limitations should be discounted simply because they appear in the prior art. The Court reiterated that it is inappropriate to dissect claims into old and new elements and then ignore the old when assessing eligibility under § 101. Rather, under Alice, the “step one inquiry involves consideration of the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” The Court cautioned against conflating the patent eligibility inquiry under § 101 with the separate questions of novelty and nonobviousness under §§ 102 and 103.

Wrestling with prevailing defendant’s post-trial fee request in copyright dispute

by Christian Tatum | Aug 21, 2025 | Copyrights, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to the defendant after it prevailed at trial in a copyright infringement suit, concluding that the district court adequately addressed the Supreme Court’s Fogarty factors and did not abuse its discretion. Booker T. Huffman v. Activision Publ’g, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-40072 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025) (Richman, Elrod, Oldham, JJ.) (Oldham, J., dissenting) (nonprecedential).

Booker Huffman, a retired professional wrestler, alleged that Activision’s “Prophet” character in Call of Duty: Black Ops IV infringed his G.I. Bro comic book poster. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Activision. Activision then sought attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, arguing that Huffman’s claims were frivolous, objectively unreasonable, and brought in bad faith, citing a lack of supporting evidence and substantial proof of independent creation. The district court found that the claims involved unsettled areas of law and were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable. Applying the factors the Supreme Court outlined in Fogarty v. Fantasy (1994), the district court concluded that an award of attorneys’ fees was not warranted. Activision appealed.

Activision argued that the district court failed to follow Fifth Circuit precedent, which holds that fee awards are “the rule rather than the exception” for prevailing parties in copyright actions. Activision contended that Huffman’s claims were meritless due to a lack of evidence establishing access, striking similarity, or causation. The Fifth Circuit rejected these arguments, emphasizing that there is no automatic entitlement to fees and that the district court’s six-page Fogerty analysis was more thorough than in other cases in which the Fifth Circuit has sustained lower court fee decisions. The Fifth Circuit highlighted that the district court carefully analyzed whether Huffman’s claims were objectively unreasonable, noting that the case implicated areas of unsettled law. The panel emphasized the district court’s denial of Activision’s pretrial motions, the evidence supporting Huffman’s access and similarity, and the district court’s evaluation of the evidentiary record.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Activision’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to analyze each of the Fogerty factors separately, finding that the judge recited the parties’ arguments for the relevant factors and that it could be inferred that the district court did not find Activision’s arguments persuasive. Throughout its analysis, the Court emphasized that a district court’s attorneys’ fees decision is reviewed only for abuse of discretion and not to relitigate the merits.

Judge Oldham dissented, concluding that Huffman’s claims were “speculation piled on fantasy piled on a pipe dream” and that overwhelming evidence of independent creation made the suit clearly unreasonable. Judge Oldman would have awarded fees to compensate Activision for defending against what he characterized as a baseless $32 million claim and to deter similarly unmeritorious lawsuits in the future.

Identical or not? Jury can’t decide issues of claim construction

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement, finding that the jury’s infringement findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the district court had improperly delegated claim construction to the jury. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Case No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (LabCorp) holds two patents with substantially overlapping specifications, both generally directed to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing and enrichment techniques aimed at enabling whole-genome sequencing. LabCorp initiated litigation alleging that various Qiagen Sciences kits containing materials used in DNA sample preparation for sequencing infringed its patents. During claim construction, the district court construed several patent terms as follows:

In the first patent, “second target-specific primer” means a single-stranded oligonucleotide with a 3’ portion that specifically anneals to a portion of the known target nucleotide sequence in the amplicon from step (b), and a 5’ portion identical to a second sequencing primer.
Also in the first patent, “second adaptor primer” refers to a nucleic acid molecule containing a sequence identical to part of the first sequencing primer and nested relative to the first adaptor primer.
In the second patent, “target-specific primer” is defined as a primer sufficiently complementary to the target to enable selective annealing and amplification, without amplifying non-target sequences in the sample.

The jury found that Qiagen infringed the first patent under the doctrine of equivalents and willfully and literally infringed the second patent. The jury awarded damages accordingly. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for JMOL to reverse the damages and the jury’s findings of infringement and validity, and its alternative request for a new trial. Qiagen appealed.

Qiagen raised two noninfringement arguments regarding the first patent, and the Federal Circuit agreed with both. First, the Court held that it was error to allow the jury to apply “plain meaning” and equate a sequence being “identical to another” with being “identical to a portion” of another. Specifically, Qiagen’s accused second target-specific primer (Sample Index Primer, or SIP) was 19 nucleotides long while the second sequencing primer (Read2 primer) was 34 nucleotides. The fact that they shared an overlapping sequence did not make them identical.

Although the district court had treated “identical” as a factual issue for the jury, the Federal Circuit, citing its 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech., found that this was a claim construction matter that should not have been left to the jury. The term “identical” must be given its full meaning under claim construction and cannot be interpreted as “identical to a portion.” The Court emphasized that the specification and claims distinguished between full and partial identity: The second target-specific primer must be “identical to” the second sequencing primer while the adaptor primer need only be “identical to a portion” of the first sequencing primer. This difference [...]

Continue Reading

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

by Taylor MacDonald | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to adequately support the full scope of the asserted claims (35 U.S.C. § 112). Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Case Nos. 23-2117; -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) (Taranto, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Mondis sued LG for alleged infringement of a patent related to computer display technology. During prosecution, Mondis amended the claims to overcome prior art, changing a limitation from identifying a particular display unit to identifying a type of display unit (the type limitation). A jury found in favor of Mondis and awarded $45 million in damages. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the patent was invalid due to a lack of written description supporting the type limitation. The district court denied the motion but granted a retrial on damages. The second jury awarded more than $14 million. LG appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied regional law standard (here, Third Circuit law) to review the district court’s denial of JMOL (i.e., assessing whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict). In evaluating patent validity under the written description requirement of § 112, the Court focused on whether the specification sufficiently demonstrated that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, including any amendments made during prosecution.

The Federal Circuit examined whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of validity and concluded that LG did not need extrinsic evidence to challenge the patent’s validity but properly relied on the specification. The Court found that Mondis’ attempt to piece together fragments of testimony (primarily related to infringement) to argue for implicit support in the specification was insufficient because the specification’s plain language supported only the original unamended claim limitation, not the amended type limitation.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that both parties presented expert testimony at trial. However, the Court found that even Mondis’ expert testimony, when considered alongside the specification’s plain meaning, failed to provide adequate support for the jury’s finding. While a jury may infer implicit support, Mondis did not present enough particularized testimony to justify such an inference.

Mondis also argued that the examiner’s allowance of the amended claim indicated sufficient support in the specification, and that the presumption of validity of an issued patent supported its position. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the examiner’s focus was on overcoming prior art, not on evaluating written descriptions. Accepting Mondis’ position would effectively shield most patents from later invalidation, a result the Court deemed impractical.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description.