April 2025 Month in Review - CAFC Patent Cases

Topics covered include prosecution history disclaimer and its interaction with litigation stipulations in a Hatch-Waxman case (Azurity v. Alkem), the analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly for software and image processing claims focusing on the requirement for specific "how" details beyond abstract ideas (Longitude Licensing v. Google), induced infringement in the context of ANDA filings and the weight given to drug label instructions versus other evidence (Metacel v. Rubicon), and design patent infringement, emphasizing the importance of the ordinary observer test and plain dissimilarity based on ornamental features at the summary judgment stage (North Star Technology v. Latham Pool Products). Finally, one source discusses the procedural challenges of seeking relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b), highlighting the critical role of timeliness and preserving arguments during initial proceedings and appeals (Wakefield v. Blackboard).