Gideon Korrell

  The Federal Circuit’s decision in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co. delivers a wide-ranging opinion that touches evidentiary rulings, patent validity, and most notably damages law after EcoFactor v. Google. While the case addresses multiple issues, Gideon Korrell emphasizes that its lasting impact will likely come from how firmly the court reinforced limits on damages testimony under Rule 702. The opinion is best understood by following the court’s structure: the on-sale bar dispute over LED tube patents, the jury verdict on a shock-prevention patent, and the damages analysis shaped by EcoFactor. When Excluding Evidence Becomes Reversible Error CH Lighting stipulated to infringement of two LED tube-lamp patents but challenged their validity under the AIA on-sale bar. Its defense relied on evidence that comparable LED tubes from Cree, MaxLite, and Philips were commercially available before the patents’ priority dates. At trial, the distri...

  The Federal Circuit’s July 2025 decision in Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC offers a clear lesson in jurisdictional strategy. Although the dispute revolved around post-expiration patent royalties, the court never reached the merits. Instead, it held that it lacked jurisdiction because Acorda pleaded a non-patent alternative theory. As Gideon Korrell often reminds clients, jurisdiction can determine the outcome long before the substance is addressed. Background: Expired Patent, Ongoing Royalties, and a Refund Dispute Acorda developed Ampyra®, a drug used to improve mobility in multiple-sclerosis patients. Alkermes owned a patent covering the drug’s sustained-release formulation and licensed it to Acorda. Even after the patent expired in July 2018, Acorda continued paying royalties for nearly two years. In 2020, facing generic competition, Acorda initiated arbitration. Relying on Brulotte v. Thys and Kimble v. Marvel, it argued that post-expiration royalties were unenfor...

The Federal Circuit’s July 23, 2025, decision in Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Intrastate Distributors, Inc. is a reminder that trademark disputes often turn on careful evidentiary analysis rather than dramatic shifts in doctrine. By reversing the TTAB’s dismissal of Sunkist’s opposition to the KIST marks, the court clarified how “commercial impression” must be proven and how easily it can be misunderstood. As Gideon Korrell frequently emphasizes, appeals from the TTAB are less about novel legal theories and more about whether the record actually supports the Board’s conclusions. This case illustrates that point with unusual clarity. A Century of Beverage Branding Meets Modern Trademark Law Both SUNKIST and KIST trace their roots back nearly 100 years. Sunkist’s beverage branding dates to at least the 1930s, supported by continuous use and a deep portfolio of trademark registrations. KIST, by contrast, experienced long periods of nonuse, with earlier registrations abandoned in the early 20...

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), serves as a pointed reminder that jury verdicts, particularly in technically complex patent cases, remain subject to strict appellate review. In a comprehensive reversal, the court vacated a Delaware jury’s willful infringement verdict involving two molecular diagnostics patents and ordered judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement. Gideon Korrell views the decision as part of a broader trend: the Federal Circuit is increasingly unwilling to allow juries to resolve unresolved claim-scope disputes or fill evidentiary gaps with generalized narratives of technical similarity. Case Background: Two Patents and Divergent Infringement Theories The dispute centered on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,810 and 10,450,597, both covering DNA sample preparation methods for sequencing using PCR-based enrichment techniques. The patents describe workflows employin...