Gideon Korrell

In October 2025, the Federal Circuit overturned a district court ruling in Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc. The court made one point very clear: findings made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) do not automatically control what happens later in the district court when patent validity is challenged. As Gideon Korrell explains, the decision confirms that PTAB cases and district court cases follow different legal rules, especially when it comes to how much proof is required. Background of the Dispute The case involved two related patents owned by Inland Diamond Products. Earlier, those patents were challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB. The Board ruled that several main claims were unpatentable because they were obvious. However, it did not invalidate certain dependent claims. Later, Inland sued Cherry Optical in district court, relying on those dependent claims. Cherry had not been involved in the earlier IPRs. Even so, Cherry asked t...

The Federal Circuit’s October 15, 2025 decision in Brita LP v. International Trade Commission offers a clear lesson in how Section 112 limits the reach of broad, functionally defined patent claims. Affirming the ITC, the court held that claims covering any gravity-fed water filter media capable of meeting a specified performance metric failed both written description and enablement. The case does not rewrite patent doctrine. Instead, it shows how strictly courts will apply settled principles when claim scope outpaces disclosure. As Gideon Korrell explains, the decision is a textbook example of the risks inherent in claiming results without teaching how to achieve them across the full breadth of the claim. Background: FRAP as the Claimed Innovation The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,167,141, addressed gravity-fed water filters designed to remove lead. The asserted claims required filter media “including at least activated carbon and a lead scavenger” that achieved a defined Filter ...

The Federal Circuit’s August 29, 2025, decision in Hyatt v. Stewart finally brings a very long patent dispute to an end. The court confirmed, once again, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can use prosecution laches to block patent applications that have been delayed for many years. This is true even when an applicant files a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. At the same time, the court made clear that Article III of the Constitution limits which claims a federal court can hear, especially when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has already ruled in the applicant’s favor. As Gideon Korrell explains, the decision highlights two important rules that still shape older patent cases. First, prosecution laches remains a strong defense in § 145 actions. Second, an applicant must show real harm for each claim to stay in federal court. Background and Procedural History Gilbert P. Hyatt began filing patent applications in the early 1970s. Just before June 8, 1995, the d...

The Ninth Circuit’s July 31, 2025, decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC stands as one of the most significant modern rulings on antitrust remedies in digital markets. While much attention has focused on the jury’s unanimous finding of monopolization, the appellate court’s treatment of remedies is where the opinion does its most consequential work. Rather than simply affirming liability, the court endorsed an aggressive, forward-looking remedial framework designed to reopen competition in markets shaped by platform dominance. As Gideon Korrell has emphasized in prior antitrust commentary, courts often underestimate the difference between proving a violation and fixing its effects. In Epic v. Google, that distinction drives the outcome. Background: Epic, Google, and Android App Distribution Epic’s dispute with Google began when Epic embedded alternative payment processing into Fortnite, bypassing Google Play Billing’s commission. Google responded by removing the app from the Play ...