gideonkorrell

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Discusses $18.5M Design Patent & Trademark Reversal

In a significant ruling, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s $18.5 million verdict in Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC, highlighting evolving standards in design patent claim scope and trademark infringement evidence. Gideon Korrell considers this decision noteworthy for three key reasons: the prosecution history disclaimer applies to design patents, the accused product falls within the surrendered scope, and trademark infringement evidence fails under the likelihood-of-confusion standard.

Background: Oversized Hoodies and the D788 Design Patent

Cozy Comfort sells a popular oversized wearable blanket called “The Comfy,” protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 (“D788 patent”) and two federal trademark registrations. Top Brand markets similar products under brands like “Tirrinia” and “Catalonia” through Amazon and other platforms.

Cozy Comfort claimed that seven of Top Brand’s product lines infringed both its design patent and trademarks. Initially, the jury sided with Cozy Comfort, awarding $15.4 million for design patent infringement and $3.08 million for trademark violations. The district court denied Top Brand’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, prompting an appeal.

Design Patent: Prosecution History Disclaimer Applied

The Federal Circuit, with Judge Dyk writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that the district court erred by not applying prosecution history disclaimer to the design patent. While this doctrine is common in utility patents, this case confirms its strong applicability to design patents as well.

During prosecution, Cozy Comfort narrowed the D788 patent’s scope to overcome prior art. Key distinguishing features included:

A narrow, square-like marsupial pocket

Pocket placement beneath the armholes

Downward-sloping bottom hemline

Different vertical alignment of the armscye pouch

Top Brand’s products mirrored the disclaimed features, particularly in pocket shape and hemline. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find infringement once the patent was properly construed. This reinforces precedents like Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. and highlights the limits of design patent claims.

Trademark: Weak Evidence of Confusion

The court also reversed the trademark infringement award. Key findings included:

“THE COMFY” is a weak, descriptive mark for wearable blankets.

Top Brand used the term “Comfy” descriptively, not as a source identifier.

Customer confusion evidence was minimal and not clearly linked to Top Brand’s actions.

The court emphasized that descriptive terms cannot form the basis of a trademark claim without strong evidence of secondary meaning, citing KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. and Booking.com B.V.

Strategic Implications

Charles Gideon Korrell identifies several important takeaways from this ruling:

Design patentees must respect prosecution history: Statements made during patent prosecution can limit claim scope in litigation.

Design patent protection is narrow: Patents protect only the shown drawings and are easily limited by disclaimer.

Trademark claims require clear evidence: Descriptive or generic terms cannot be monopolized without proof of source-identifying use.

No need to challenge patent validity: Since infringement findings were reversed, the court did not consider the patent’s validity, following established case law.

This decision will likely influence how district courts handle claim construction in design patent cases and serves as a warning against asserting weak trademark claims without substantial evidence.

Gideon Korrell believes the ruling underscores the importance of careful prosecution and litigation strategy, especially for patents and trademarks with narrow scope or descriptive elements.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Talks About $18.5M Verdict Reversal in Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort

Gideon Korrell discusses the Federal Circuit’s reversal of an $18.5M verdict in Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company, highlighting key rulings on design patent prosecution history disclaimers and trademark infringement standards. This case emphasizes the importance of precise patent scope and strong evidence in trademark claims.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Talks About Why Colibri Lost to Medtronic in Patent Infringement

In this episode, Gideon Korrell breaks down the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a $106 million verdict in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC. He explores how Colibri’s reliance on the doctrine of equivalents was shut down by prosecution history estoppel after cancelling a critical claim during patent prosecution. Gideon explains why strategic claim drafting and continuation practices are vital, and how this case reinforces the enduring power of the public-notice function in patent law. A must-listen for IP attorneys, in-house counsel, and innovators navigating complex patent landscapes.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Shares How Estoppel Barred Infringement in the Colibri Case

The Federal Circuit's July 18, 2025 ruling in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC reversed a $106 million jury verdict. The court found that Colibri’s infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents was blocked by prosecution history estoppel. Gideon Korrell, a seasoned legal expert, highlights how this decision offers a critical reminder about the impact of cancelled claims in patent litigation.

What Was the Case About?

The case revolved around U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, which described a method for implanting a collapsible and expandable heart valve. A key feature of the invention was a “do-over” mechanism, allowing the device to be partially deployed and repositioned if necessary.

During prosecution, Colibri originally submitted two versions of the valve deployment method:

One method claimed pushing the valve out of the sheath.

The other method claimed retracting the sheath to expose the valve.

The examiner rejected the retraction-based claim (claim 39) for lack of written description, prompting Colibri to cancel it and proceed with the pushing method (claim 34, later issued as claim 1).

The Infringement Dispute with Medtronic

Colibri filed a lawsuit against Medtronic, accusing it of inducing infringement by using its Evolut devices. These devices use a retraction mechanism to deploy the heart valve.

At trial, Colibri abandoned its literal infringement argument and instead relied on the doctrine of equivalents, claiming that retracting the sheath was essentially the same as pushing the valve.

The jury agreed, awarding Colibri $106 million. But Medtronic appealed, arguing that Colibri’s claim was barred by prosecution history estoppel due to its earlier cancellation of the retraction-based claim.

Federal Circuit Reversal: Estoppel Blocks Equivalents

The Federal Circuit, in a unanimous opinion by Judge Taranto, reversed the jury’s decision and entered judgment for Medtronic. The court held that prosecution history estoppel applied, and Colibri could not claim equivalence for the retraction method it had previously cancelled.

Key Takeaways from the Court’s Ruling

1. Colibri’s Argument Undermined Its Own Position

Colibri argued that Medtronic’s method used both pushing and retracting. However, it also relied on “basic physics” to claim the equivalence, which effectively supported the idea that the two methods were interchangeable, exactly what the cancelled claim covered.

2. Cancelled Claim Was Closely Related

The only difference between the issued and cancelled claims was whether the valve was deployed by pushing or retracting. Because of their close relationship, the court ruled that cancelling one barred Colibri from reclaiming its scope through equivalents.

3. Estoppel Isn’t Just About Amended Claims

The court rejected a narrow view of estoppel. It emphasized that cancellation of a closely related claim, not just amendment, can trigger estoppel, especially when it affects the scope of the remaining claims.

4. No Exceptions Applied

Colibri did not claim any of the usual exceptions to estoppel (such as unforeseeability or tangential relation). As a result, the court found no reason to excuse the estoppel.

Lessons for Patent Holders

Gideon Korrell emphasizes that this case is a warning for patent prosecutors and litigators alike.

Key lessons include:

Cancelled claims matter. Even if a claim is not part of the final patent, its cancellation can limit how broadly the remaining claims are interpreted later in court.

Careful prosecution strategy is crucial. If alternative embodiments are involved, filing a continuation application may preserve flexibility rather than cancelling key claims.

In-court arguments can backfire. Litigants must align their litigation theories with the prosecution record. Statements made during trial, especially based on "common sense", can have unintended consequences.

Conclusion

The Federal Circuit's decision in the Colibri v. Medtronic case reinforces the strength of prosecution history estoppel as a legal defense. By reversing the lower court’s verdict, the court reaffirmed the importance of the public record in determining the scope of a patent.

As Gideon Korrell notes, this ruling is a key precedent for future patent cases. It reminds us that what happens during prosecution, particularly claim cancellations, can directly shape the outcome of litigation years later.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Explores Patent Limits in Colibri v. Medtronic Court Ruling

In this video, Gideon Korrell breaks down the Federal Circuit’s reversal in Colibri v. Medtronic, highlighting how prosecution history estoppel barred a $106M infringement claim. He explains the case’s impact on patent strategy and why careful claim management is critical.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Dissects Landmark Ruling in Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma

Gideon Korrell unpacks the Federal Circuit’s reversal in the Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma case, emphasizing how prosecution history redefined the meaning of “consisting essentially of.” He explains why the PTAB’s broader interpretation failed and how narrowing claim language during prosecution can critically impact obviousness and enforceability. A must-listen for patent lawyers and litigation professionals.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Discuss How Cisco Defeated Egenera’s Infringement Allegations

In a major legal victory, Cisco Systems has successfully defended itself in a long-running patent dispute with Egenera, Inc. The case involved complex arguments about whether Cisco’s Unified Computing System (UCS) violated Egenera’s U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430. The Federal Circuit, on July 7, 2025, upheld a lower court’s ruling that Cisco did not infringe any of the patent’s claims. This ruling closes a nearly ten-year legal battle—and offers some important lessons for future patent litigation.

As Charles Gideon Korrell notes, this case exemplifies the perils of failing to preserve claim construction arguments and demonstrates the rigorous evidentiary standards patent plaintiffs must meet at both the summary judgment and trial stages.

What Was the Dispute About?

Egenera owns a patent that covers a system for creating virtual networks using software, instead of physically reconnecting hardware. Their invention claims that processors can be configured to create virtual local area networks (VLANs) with emulated Ethernet functionality.

Egenera accused Cisco’s UCS of using a similar system. They claimed Cisco’s servers and software created VLANs in a way that infringed on their patent. Cisco disagreed and said their UCS relied on different technology that didn’t copy or infringe on Egenera’s system.

The Court’s Ruling: Why Cisco Won

The court looked at four specific claims in Egenera’s patent—two system claims (1 and 3) and two method claims (5 and 7). Here’s how each part played out:

1. Summary Judgment on Claims 1 and 5

The lower court decided early on that Cisco did not infringe these claims. Egenera had argued that Cisco’s CPUs (processors) emulated Ethernet functions. But Cisco proved that the emulation happened in separate components called NICs (network interface cards), not in the CPUs. The court agreed and found Egenera didn’t provide evidence that the CPUs performed the necessary emulation.

Egenera also made a mistake: they didn’t argue about how the court should define the word “emulate.” Because they didn’t raise that point early enough, they lost the opportunity to challenge it later. This kind of legal error is called a “procedural misstep,” and it played a big role in the outcome.

2. Trial Verdict on Claims 3 and 7

These claims required the system to set up a specific virtual network “topology” using processors. Cisco presented strong evidence that their system built network topology using NICs, not processors, which the patent required. Egenera tried to argue that software loaded into CPUs met the requirement, but the jury didn’t agree. And because the jury gave a general “not guilty” verdict, the court only needed one strong reason to uphold it—which Cisco clearly provided.

Egenera’s Attempt for a New Trial: Denied

Egenera asked for a new trial, but the court denied it. The company argued that the verdict went against the evidence and that some legal instructions were flawed. However, the court found that:

The jury instructions were accurate.

Egenera didn’t object to some issues soon enough.

Cisco’s arguments at trial, even if aggressive, didn’t break any rules.

Charles Gideon Korrell emphasizes that the procedural posture of these objections matters deeply. Litigants who fail to timely object cannot later complain that errors warrant a new trial, especially where the court provides accurate and complete jury instructions.

Lessons from the Case (Key Takeaways)

This case offers important guidance for anyone involved in patent lawsuits. Here’s what we learned:

1. Act Early on Claim Interpretation

Egenera lost the chance to argue what “emulate” should mean because they didn’t raise it in time. Always define key technical terms early in the case.

2. Provide Clear Technical Evidence

Cisco won by clearly showing how its system works. Egenera couldn’t prove that Cisco’s CPUs met the patent’s requirements.

3. Respect Courtroom Procedures

Many of Egenera’s complaints were dismissed because they didn’t follow court rules. Objections need to be timely and specific.

4. Understand Jury Power

Juries have the right to weigh evidence and decide who to believe. If they have solid reasons, courts won’t usually overturn their decisions.

Final Thoughts

Legal expert Charles Gideon Korrell summed it up well: this case shows how important it is to follow the rules, present strong evidence, and make your arguments clearly and on time. Cisco’s win is a perfect example of how careful planning, clear technical explanation, and procedural discipline can lead to success in complex tech-related lawsuits.

For patent holders and tech companies alike, this case serves as a blueprint—both for how to defend a patent and how not to lose one.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Reveals What Went Wrong in In re Forest Patent Dispute

The In re Forest case highlights that patents filed after their 20-year term hold no legal value—neither enforceable nor provisional rights apply. Gideon Korrell explains how this decision shuts down attempts to revive expired claims and reinforces strict patent timelines. A clear reminder: provisional rights can't stand alone, and expired patents offer no second chances.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Discusses Why CAFC Reduced Damages in Wash World

The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant split ruling in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc. The court affirmed infringement liability but vacated the lost profits damages award due to improper inclusion of convoyed sales. Patent expert Gideon Korrell highlights this case’s important insights into claim construction waiver, limits on damages for convoyed sales, and preserving post-trial remedies — all critical for patent holders and defendants managing patent risks and damages strategies.

Background of the Case

Belanger Inc. holds U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041, covering a lighted spray arm used in automated car wash systems. Belanger accused Wash World’s “Razor EDGE” system of infringing its patent.

Wash World filed a declaratory judgment action but was ultimately found liable for infringement of independent claim 7 and related dependent claims.

A jury awarded over $10 million in damages, mostly lost profits.

Claim Construction: The Importance of Preserving Arguments Early

Wash World appealed, arguing the district court erred by not construing three critical claim terms:

“Outer cushioning sleeve”

“Predefined wash area”

“Dependingly mounted from”

Key Takeaways on Claim Construction Waiver from Gideon Korrell

The Federal Circuit applied a strict forfeiture rule, finding Wash World waived its proposed new constructions for the first two terms by failing to clearly raise them at trial.

Wash World’s appellate constructions differed materially from its trial arguments and were considered untimely.

Only the issue of “dependingly mounted from” was preserved properly; the court affirmed that both direct and indirect mounting satisfied this claim limitation.

According to Gideon Korrell, this ruling highlights the critical need to frame claim construction disputes clearly and early. Vague or implicit arguments are insufficient, and the Federal Circuit will enforce waiver unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Damages and Convoyed Sales: Understanding the Limits

Wash World succeeded in challenging a significant part of the jury’s lost profits award — approximately $2.58 million related to convoyed sales.

What Are Convoyed Sales?

Convoyed sales refer to unpatented components sold together with patented products.

Under the precedent of Rite-Hite v. Kelley Co., to claim lost profits on convoyed sales, the patentee must prove the components form a functional unit — they must be physically and functionally interrelated, operating together as part of the patented invention.

Simply selling items together for convenience or packaging does not qualify.

What Happened in This Case?

Belanger’s damages expert included profits from unpatented components like dryers, bundled with the patented car wash system, in the lost profits calculation.

The jury’s damages award mirrored this inflated estimate.

Belanger argued these components were typically sold as a package, with dryers installed in 75% of their systems.

However, the Federal Circuit ruled that commercial packaging alone is insufficient to meet the functional unit requirement.

The court emphasized that mere convenience or business advantage does not justify damages on convoyed sales.

Outcome on Damages

The court ordered a remittitur of $2,577,848 — reducing the lost profits damages to exclude improper convoyed sales.

The district court was directed to enter a revised damages award accordingly.

Practical Implications for Patent Holders and Defendants

Claim Construction: Always present and argue claim constructions clearly and consistently at trial. Avoid changing your position on appeal without strong justification.

Damages Strategy: When seeking lost profits, ensure unpatented components claimed as convoyed sales meet the stringent functional unit test.

Trial and Post-Trial Strategy: Monitor jury verdict forms and expert models carefully to avoid judicial estoppel or losing damage claims on appeal.

Gideon Korrell emphasizes that this ruling is a clear reminder that precision in claim construction and damages presentation can critically impact patent enforcement outcomes. Both patent holders and accused infringers should carefully plan their litigation strategy to avoid costly reversals on appeal.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Talks About In re Forest and the Loss of Patent Term and Provisional Rights

Gideon Korrell breaks down the In re Forest case, where the court denied patent and provisional rights for an expired application. He explains how this decision reinforces the limits of patent terms and prevents revival of outdated strategies like submarine patents.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Explores the Impact of Express Terms in Alnylam v. Moderna

Gideon Korrell explains the Alnylam v. Moderna case, where the court used a strict meaning of a patent term to decide the result. This shows how one clear sentence in a patent can change everything. Korrell says to be careful with phrases like “unless otherwise specified,” as they won’t help unless clearly explained.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Breaks Down the Patent Fight Between Ancora and Roku

Gideon Korrell explains the main points in the Ancora v. Roku case, where the Federal Circuit changed a decision made by the PTAB. He talks about how real-life license deals helped support the patent. This episode is great for anyone interested in patent law.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Highlights the Power of Rebellion and Reform Against Unjust Laws

Gideon Korrell shares a strong message about how unfair laws can lead to big changes. His quote, “In every unjust law lies the seed of rebellion and reform,” shows that when something isn't right, people often rise up to fix it. The image, with Lady Justice, a gavel, and open law books, adds meaning to his words. It reminds us that real justice comes when people speak out, take action, and work for better laws.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Tells How CAFC Curbs Convoyed Sales in Wash World v. Belanger

Gideon Korrell examines the CAFC’s decision in Wash World v. Belanger, revealing how improper claim construction and flawed conveyed sales damages led to reduced awards. A crucial case study for patent litigators.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Explains CAFC Reins in Convoyed Sales in Wash World v. Belanger

In a split decision that carries significant lessons for patent litigation strategy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently ruled in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc. The court affirmed liability for patent infringement but vacated a significant portion of the damages award—specifically, lost profits linked to improperly included convoyed sales.

For patent practitioners and companies managing IP risks, this decision — which has drawn attention from experts like Gideon Korrell — underscores the importance of early claim construction and the precise handling of damage models.

Case Background: The Fight Over a Car Wash Innovation

Belanger Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041, covering a lighted spray arm in an automated car wash system. It sued Wash World for patent infringement, claiming that Wash World's “Razor EDGE” system violated several claims of the patent, including independent claim 7.

Wash World responded with a declaratory judgment action but was found liable by the district court. A jury awarded over $10 million in damages, primarily based on lost profits.

Claim Construction: Waiver Can Cost You on Appeal

Wash World appealed, arguing that the district court failed to properly construe three critical claim terms:

“Outer cushioning sleeve”

“Predefined wash area”

“Dependingly mounted from”

The Federal Circuit rejected most of these arguments, applying a strict forfeiture rule. Wash World had waived its right to argue new constructions for the first two terms by failing to clearly present them during the trial.

For example, Wash World changed its interpretation of “outer cushioning sleeve” on appeal, switching from a “thick sleeve of extruded foam plastic” to a new definition involving spring-back resiliency — a materially different argument not preserved at trial.

Only the phrase “dependingly mounted from” was properly preserved, and the court upheld the trial court's interpretation that both direct and indirect mounting methods satisfied the claim.

As Gideon Korrell notes in his analysis, this case is a textbook example of why parties must raise clear and timely claim construction arguments. Relying on vague language or waiting until appeal is a high-risk strategy.

Damages: Drawing the Line on Convoyed Sales

Though Wash World lost most of its claim construction arguments, it succeeded in challenging $2.58 million of the $9.8 million damages award—specifically, profits tied to convoyed sales of unpatented car wash components.

Convoyed sales refer to unpatented items sold along with a patented invention. Under the Rite-Hite v. Kelley Co. standard, such components must form a functional unit with the patented product to qualify for lost profits recovery.

In this case, Belanger’s expert, Dr. McDuff, included profits from unpatented dryers and other accessories in his damage model. The jury awarded exactly what Dr. McDuff proposed — indicating that convoyed sales factored heavily into their calculation.

However, Belanger failed to prove the required functional interdependence. The evidence showed that the dryers were often sold with the system, but not that they were functionally necessary for the patented spray arm to operate.

As the court put it, selling the items together for “convenience or business advantage” does not justify including their profits in a patent damages award.

Final Outcome: Reduced Award and Strategic Lessons

The CAFC ordered a remittitur of $2,577,848, instructing the district court to enter a reduced damages award. Belanger’s attempt to resist the reduction failed because it had repeatedly endorsed Dr. McDuff’s model in earlier proceedings, precluding them from taking a new position on appeal.

Gideon Korrell, who has written extensively on patent enforcement strategies, views this case as a reminder that both claim construction and damages arguments must be handled with precision and foresight. Especially in jury trials, how damages are modeled and communicated can directly shape the verdict.

Key Takeaways

Timely and specific claim construction arguments are essential; vague or evolving positions can lead to waiver.

Convoyed sales must meet a strict functional-unit test to qualify for lost profits.

A general verdict form does not shield a party from remittitur if they clearly tied the verdict to a flawed damages model.

As Gideon Korrell emphasizes, success in patent litigation is often as much about preserving rights procedurally as it is about substantive patent law.

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell on What the Optis v. Apple Retrial Means for Tech Giants

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made headlines by vacating a $300 million damages award in the ongoing legal battle between Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and Apple Inc. The court also ordered a new trial on both infringement and damages. According to legal analyst Gideon Korrell, this ruling signals the court’s strong commitment to upholding constitutional rights and fair litigation practices—especially in complex cases involving standard-essential patents (SEPs).

Why the Verdict Was Overturned

The court’s decision revolved around two major legal missteps in the trial proceedings:

1. Violation of Apple’s Right to a Unanimous Jury Verdict

The Eastern District of Texas used a flawed verdict form that allowed jurors to find Apple liable without agreeing on which specific patents were infringed. Instead of requiring jurors to agree on each individual patent, the form merely asked whether “any” of the claims were infringed. This structure violated Apple’s Seventh Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Both Optis and Apple had requested a claim-by-claim format, but the district court ignored these requests—an error that ultimately invalidated the jury's liability findings.

2. Improper Use of Prejudicial Evidence

Optis had presented a settlement agreement between Apple and Qualcomm as part of its damages case. However, the court ruled this evidence was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The Apple-Qualcomm deal involved unrelated disputes and was not comparable to the current litigation, making its inclusion a major procedural error.

Damages Award Also Vacated

Because the liability finding was thrown out, the $300 million damages verdict couldn’t stand. The jury had been instructed to assume that all five patents were infringed when calculating damages. Without valid liability, the damages calculation was legally unsound.

Key Patent Law Standards Reinforced

The Federal Circuit also used the opportunity to reaffirm important patent law doctrines:

Abstract Ideas Under § 101

Two claims from U.S. Patent No. 8,019,332 were ruled invalid because they described an abstract mathematical formula. The court cited the Alice framework, confirming its continued enforcement in SEP litigation.

Vague Terms and § 112 ¶ 6

The court also addressed the term “selecting unit” in U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557, ruling that it invoked Section 112 Paragraph 6 due to its vagueness. The court emphasized the need for specific structural guidance and remanded this part for further examination.

Apple Wins Some, Loses Some

While Apple succeeded in many aspects, not all of its arguments prevailed. The court rejected Apple’s challenge to the district court’s interpretation of one of the patent claims, showing that claim construction rulings are still heavily reliant on the trial court's discretion.

Optis' Attempt to Reinstate $506 Million Fails

Optis also tried to bring back an earlier $506 million award from a prior trial. However, the Federal Circuit found that the same jury unanimity problem was present in that verdict, and it too could not be revived.

Gideon Korrell: Key Takeaways for Patent Litigants

As Gideon Korrell points out, this ruling carries several critical lessons for those involved in patent litigation:

Clarity in Verdict Forms is essential to protect the defendant’s right to a unanimous decision.

Large settlement agreements must be highly relevant to the case to avoid prejudicing the jury.

Damages must be tied to proven infringement, especially in disputes involving FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing terms.

Final Thoughts from Gideon Korrell

This decision sends a clear message: the Federal Circuit demands fairness, precision, and evidentiary integrity in all stages of litigation. The ruling will likely influence how SEP disputes are handled in the future, especially in jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas, which frequently hear high-stakes patent cases.

As Gideon Korrell notes, “This retrial isn't just a procedural reset—it's a reminder that constitutional rights and rigorous standards remain the foundation of our legal system, even in the most complex patent wars.”

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Tells Why Inherent Anticipation in Sigray v. Zeiss Must Match Entire Claim Scope

Patent attorney Gideon Korrell breaks down the Federal Circuit's ruling in Sigray v. Zeiss, explaining why inherent anticipation must align with the full claim scope—and how subtle claim construction errors can change the outcome of patent challenges.