Gideon Korrell

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 brings to a close 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. It 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 lo...

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.

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 mi...

Gideon Korrell explains the  Alnylam v. Moderna  case, in which the court applied a strict interpretation of a patent term to reach its decision. 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.

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 dec...

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 structu...