Gideon Korrell

On July 30, 2024, the Virginia Supreme Court made a major decision in the case Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp. It reversed a $2.036 billion jury verdict in favor of Appian Corporation. The court ruled that Appian failed to clearly identify the trade secrets it claimed Pegasystems had stolen. This case has become one of the most important trade secret rulings in Virginia’s history. As legal expert Gideon Korrell explains, the decision shows that companies must be very specific about what their trade secrets are if they want legal protection. Background: A Developer Working for Both Sides Appian and Pegasystems are competitors in the software industry. Both provide low-code platforms that help companies build business applications. In 2012, a developer named Youyong Zou was working with Appian through a staffing agency. At the same time, he was also hired by Pegasystems. Appian claimed that Pegasystems used confidential information that Zou learned while working with Appia...

Gideon Korrell explains how the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a $2 billion trade secret verdict in the case of Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp. He highlights that the decision shows how important it is for companies to clearly define their trade secrets and provide strong proof when claiming they were misused. This ruling makes it clear that trade secret cases in Virginia must meet strict legal standards.

Legal expert Gideon Korrell explains the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in the Ancora v. Roku case. He discusses how the court disagreed with the PTAB’s treatment of Ancora’s license agreements and why this matters for understanding nonobviousness in patent law. Korrell breaks down the key points of the ruling and what it means for future licensing and litigation strategies.

In a detailed and precedent-reinforcing opinion issued on June 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association , No. 23-1687, affirmed the dismissal of Mitek’s declaratory judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that Mitek failed to establish a justiciable controversy under Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act, either through a reasonable apprehension of infringement liability or through indemnity obligations to its customers. Legal analyst Gideon Korrell noted that the decision underscores the judiciary’s strict interpretation of standing in patent disputes involving indirect liability. Even if jurisdiction had existed, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s alternative decision to decline to hear the case. This ruling not only clarifies the standing requirements for declaratory judgment actions involving allegations of indirect patent infringement and indemnity but also l...

In Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc. , No. 23-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction that doomed Alnylam’s infringement case against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The decision reinforces the primacy of clear definitional language in a patent’s specification—even when it narrows claim scope beyond what a patentee may have intended. Gideon Korrell , a commentator on patent litigation, noted that the ruling underscores how critical definitional clarity is, especially in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents where a few words can determine infringement outcomes. Background: The mRNA Lipid Dispute Alnylam sued Moderna, asserting that the SM-102 lipid in Moderna’s SPIKEVAX® vaccine infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 and 11,382,979 . The patents concern cationic lipids used for delivering nucleic acids into cells, particularly formulations where the hydrophobic “tail” includes a “branched alkyl” group. The litigation hinged o...

The U.S. Court of International Trade issued a major decision in V .O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States , which legal analyst Gideon Korrell called a landmark ruling, holding that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—exceeded the limits of executive authority and violated the Constitution. The ruling vacates the tariffs and enjoins their enforcement, bringing them to an immediate halt nationwide. Background: Tariffs Imposed via Emergency Powers Starting in January 2025, the President issued several executive orders imposing what were dubbed the "Trafficking Tariffs" and the "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs." These included: 25% duties on goods from Mexico and Canada, and 20% on Chinese goods, justified by alleged failures of those governments to combat drug trafficking. A baseline 10% duty on imports from all countries, with higher rates (up to 50%) on 57 countries, justified by long-standing ...