A trade secret dispute involving Praxis Precision Medicines shows why publishing a patent does not necessarily eliminate protection for related confidential know-how. The case highlights the importance of clearly identifying what has been publicly disclosed, what remains secret, and documentation.
A Federal Circuit decision involving the cancer drug Cabometyx highlights an important distinction between obtaining a patent and having the right to commercialize an invention. A later patent on an improvement may still fall within the scope of an earlier, broader patent.
A Federal Circuit decision involving digital television technology shows why patent claims that describe a desired result may be vulnerable, while claims tied to specific technological structures can fare better.
A Federal Circuit decision shows that filing a patent case in an improper venue may not prevent the court from deciding a substantive challenge to the patent itself. The ruling highlights why patent owners should evaluate venue and early validity risks together before filing suit.
A patent settlement between T-Mobile and KAIFI shows why agreements tying future payments to legal or regulatory outcomes need precise trigger language. The case offers a broader lesson for settlements, licenses, earnouts, and other contracts: define exactly what must happen before money becomes due
A Federal Circuit decision involving competing refrigerated-truck doors shows why a patent does not necessarily block every product that achieves the same result. Patent enforcement depends on the precise claim language, the competing product’s design, and statements made while obtaining the patent.
A Federal Circuit decision shows why challenging a government policy requires more than disagreement or advocacy costs. The plaintiff must show a concrete, ongoing injury before a court can reach the merits.