Gideon Korrell

On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Motorola Solutions’ request for a writ of mandamus in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc. As Gideon Korrell explains, the company had asked the court to overturn the USPTO’s decision to deinstitute eight inter partes reviews (IPRs) involving Stellar’s patents. The ruling highlights a consistent principle in patent law: institution decisions are largely within the Director’s discretion and are rarely open to court review. Background: How the Dispute Developed The case began with parallel litigation: Stellar sued Motorola in the district court in 2023 for patent infringement. Motorola responded by filing IPR petitions in 2024. Motorola included Sotera-style stipulations, agreeing not to raise the same invalidity arguments in court. Initially, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review. However: Stellar requested Director Review. Meanwhile, USPTO policy shifted. Earlier guidance (the Vidal Memorandum...

In Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., the Federal Circuit delivered a clear lesson on how patent language can shape outcomes. As Gideon Korrell explains, the case shows how repeated wording in a patent specification can quietly turn into a binding definition. What may seem like harmless phrasing can end up limiting claim scope and determining the result of an infringement dispute. Understanding the Technology The patents in this case relate to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices. These devices are inserted into the heart in a compressed form and then expanded once in place. There are two common ways these devices expand: Balloon-expandable frames – expanded using a balloon Self-expanding frames – made from materials that expand on their own The claims at issue described a valve with two parts: An inner frame (holding the valve) An outer frame (providing structure and sealing) The dispute centered on whether the “outer frame” could include a ballo...

On October 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a mixed but important decision in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. While the court rejected sweeping arguments about recusal and due process, it still vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final ruling. The key reason was not bias, but the Board’s failure to properly evaluate evidence of copying an essential part of the obviousness analysis. As Gideon Korrell explains, this case shows that procedural challenges alone rarely decide appeals. Instead, substantive legal errors often carry more weight. Background of the Dispute The case arose from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings involving claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, which relates to detecting threats in encrypted network communications. Palo Alto Networks filed the initial IPR petition Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies later joined The PTAB ultimately found the claims unpatentable as obvious However, complications emerged when it was disc...

  The decision in Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP provides an important lesson about how statements made during patent prosecution can influence claim scope across an entire patent family. On October 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of non-infringement while also rejecting challenges that the patents were indefinite. As Gideon Korrell explains, the ruling highlights a common but often overlooked risk: arguments made in a later continuation application can narrow the meaning of claims in earlier patents that share the same specification. Background of the Case The dispute involved several related patents owned by Barrette that cover fencing and railing assemblies. These systems use connectors that attach pickets to rails while allowing controlled movement. The asserted patents included: U.S. Patent No. 8,413,332 U.S. Patent No. 8,413,965 U.S. Patent No. 9,551,164 U.S. Patent No. 9,963,905 These patents describe conne...