Nathaniel G. Ward

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected six petitions in patent-related cases, taking some of its first actions on intellectual property matters this term. Here's a look at the cases the justices turned down in their order list. Unless otherwise stated, representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Purdue v. Accord The high court declined to accept Purdue Pharma LP's appeal of a Federal Circuit decision denying the company's efforts to save a group of patents covering the pharmaceutical company's crush-resistant version of painkiller OxyContin. A Delaware federal court had concluded that the asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious, a decision that the Federal Circuit affirmed in December 2024, saying that the "district court did not err in its determination that routine experimentation would lead a person of ordinary skill to 'quickly postulate ... and easily confirm the existence'" of an impurity that one group of patents sought to eliminate, the appeals court said. Purdue told the high court in its petition in April that the Federal Circuit has taken far too rigid an approach to obviousness, including by adopting a so-called nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness. "The Federal Circuit has invented and deployed a stringent analysis and so-called 'nexus' test that demands evidence of a direct connection between the objective indicia and a particular claim limitation, while foreclosing recourse to broader inferences and common-sense," the petition said. Purdue is represented by Gregory G. Garre, Margaret A. Upshaw, Alexander G. Siemers, Timothy J. Borgerson and Daniel G. Brown of Latham & Watkins LLP. Accord is represented by Alejandro Menchaca and Ben J. Mahon of McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd. The case is Purdue Pharma LP et al. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., case number 24-1132, in the Supreme Court of the United States. D R Burton v. Trudell The justices shut down a petition from a medical device maker that has taken issue with a North Carolina federal judge's oversight of a patent infringement case. D R Burton Healthcare LLC in June filed its Supreme Court challenge against the Federal Circuit decision that ordered a new trial in the patent infringement case brought against it by Trudell Medical International Inc. Trudell has asserted a patent for a respiratory treatment device. The Federal Circuit took issue in February with U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle's decision to allow tardy testimony from a witness who took D R Burton's side, as well as statements from him that had the effect of "undermining the appearance of justice and fairness." But D R Burton has argued that the appeals court didn't address issues with the pacing of the case, contending that the judge put the proceedings on too quick of a schedule. "The lack of meaningful time to complete its obligations to the court and to prepare for trial in the substantially reduced time frame set forth by the court was a violation of D R Burton's due process rights," the company said in its petition. Counsel for Trudell declined to comment. D R Burton is represented by Albert P. Allan of Allan Law Firm PLLC. Trudell is represented by David P. Lindner of Crowell & Moring LLP. The case is D R Burton Healthcare LLC v. Trudell Medical International Inc., case number 25-17, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Lowe v. ShieldMark The high court denied a petition by the inventor of a patent covering a type of marking tape that asked the justices to take a closer look at what the Federal Circuit called a case with a "complex procedural history." The August petition from Cliff Lowe and Spota LLC asked the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit's opinion, which in March affirmed an Ohio federal court's conclusion that the patent was invalid as anticipated. Lowe and Spota had filed a patent infringement case against ShieldMark Inc. over the floor marking tape that it sold in 2019, and the lower court issued a ruling in ShieldMark's favor based on a claim construction ruling. But the Federal Circuit voided that claim construction ruling and ordered the lower court to take another crack at the case, which resulted in a ruling that found the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that in the alternative, the claims were anticipated. On appeal again, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the court's standing conclusion, but it agreed with the invalidity finding. Lowe and Spota have since taken issue with the Federal Circuit affirming a ruling that was made on an alternative basis. Lowe is represented by Ray L. Weber and Laura J. Gentilcore of Renner Kenner Greive Bobak Taylor & Weber Co. LPA. Shieldmark is represented by James F. McCarthy III of Sand Sebolt & Wernow LPA. The case is Clifford A. Lowe et al. v. ShieldMark Inc. et al., case number 25-169, in the Supreme Court of the United States. USAA v. PNC Bank The Supreme Court rejected United Services Automobile Association's efforts to revive two of its patents, one of which was at issue in its reversed $218 million infringement verdict against PNC Bank, declining to weigh in on this round of litigation between the companies, whose patent fights have led to numerous proceedings at the USPTO and Federal Circuit. USAA's petition took aim at a Federal Circuit decision that affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings invalidating claims in the patents covering mobile check deposit technologies. One of those patents was at issue in a $218 million infringement verdict against PNC, although the Federal Circuit in June undid that verdict and another for around $4.3 million in a separate case. The August cert petition from USAA said the PTAB invalidated claims in two of the patents, even though the board had reached a different decision in a similar challenge brought by Wells Fargo. "The Federal Circuit's decision is wrong and tells the agencies falling under the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction that they need not justify their own inconsistencies, even on the same issue and on materially similar records," its petition said. Counsel for PNC declined to comment. USAA is represented by William M. Jay and Rohiniyurie Tashima of Goodwin Procter LLP and Lisa Glasser, Anthony Rowles and Stephen Payne of Irell & Manella LLP. PNC is represented by Mark C. Fleming, Andrew J. Danford, Gregory H. Lantier and Joseph M. Meyer of WilmerHale. The case is United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank NA, case number 25-149, in the Supreme Court of the United States. Crocs v. Double Diamond In another matter that's part of a group of cases the Federal Circuit has deemed complex, the Supreme Court said it won't take on a case by Crocs challenging the appeals court's decision reviving false advertising claims against the company over its statement that its shoes were made with "patented, proprietary, and exclusive" materials that were not, in fact, patented. The July petition from Crocs said the Federal Circuit "entrenched a significant circuit split over the breadth of the Lanham Act's false advertising cause of action" when it reversed in October 2024 a Colorado federal judge's conclusion that the shoemaker's claims don't fall under the Lanham Act's prohibition on false advertising under Section 43(a)(1)(B). Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. and U.S.A. Dawgs Inc. brought their false advertising claims after Crocs sued them for patent infringement in 2016, and the appeals court said Dawgs furnished evidence indicating that Crocs' claims about the supposed patent on its shoe material spoke to the nature and characteristics of the shoes. The appeals court said 43(a)(1)(B) specifically covers claims to a product's "nature, characteristics, [and] qualities." Matthew G. Berkowitz of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, who has represented Double Diamond Distribution, said in an email that they "expected this result and are now looking forward to finally getting justice in district court for Crocs' years of misrepresentations to the public about the characteristics of their shoe material." Crocs is represented by Lisa S. Blatt and Rohit P. Asirvatham of Williams & Connolly LLP and John P. Elwood, Andrew T. Tutt, Sean M. Callagy, Isaac L. Ramsey and David A. Caine of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Double Diamond Distribution is represented by Matthew G. Berkowitz, Navid C. Bayar, Brian C. Baran, Adam Adler, Sarah O. Jorgensen and Nathaniel G. Warner of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. The case is Crocs Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. et al., case number 25-75, in the Supreme Court of the United States. R.J. Reynolds v. Altria The Supreme Court declined to consider R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.'s challenge to a $95 million verdict against it for infringing Altria vape patents. R.J. Reynolds' high court case targeted what it called the Federal Circuit's embrace of so-called built-in apportionment, which the company said is based on "comparable" patent license agreements and allowed Altria "to obtain damages on technologies it never patented, and on profits resulting from Reynolds's contributions, over which Altria obviously holds no patent rights." Such a doctrine flouts the historic notion that patent owners can only recover damages based on what they actually invented, R.J. Reynolds said. The Federal Circuit's opinion in the case, from December 2024, included a dissent from U.S. Circuit Judge William Bryson on the issue of damages. The judge said he believed the evidence supported a royalty rate of about half the 5.25% rate that Altria sought. R.J. Reynolds is represented by Jason T. Burnette, Alexis A. Smith, John R. Boulé III, Gregory A. Castanias, Amelia A. Degory and David M. Maiorana of Jones Day. Altria is represented by Mark A. Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. The case is R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Altria Client Services LLC, case number 25-158, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct 6

8 min

Willkie advised Novacap, a leading North American private equity firm, on its close of Novacap Tech Fund VII, with nearly $3.8 billion in capital commitments, including affiliated vehicles. On February 25, Novacap announced the final close of Novacap Tech Fund VII Fund with nearly $3.8 billion in capital commitments. The fund was raised in under a year, quickly exceeding its target of $2.75 billion, highlighting Novacap’s longstanding focus on disciplined, value-added technology buyouts. With the close of Tech VII – the latest fund in Novacap’s Technologies strategy, Novacap now manages more than $12 billion in assets. In 2025, Willkie advised Novacap on a number of high profile M&A transactions, including its $1.9 billion take-private of Integral Ad Science. The Willkie team was led by partners Larissa Marcellino, Giovanni Smedley and Walter Turturro and included partners Caitlin Link, Henrietta de Salis, Alexander Ryan and Sarah Kessler.

Feb 27

1 min

Retail landlord Simon Properties and luxury retailer Saks Global on Monday wrangled over the wording of a 2024 investment agreement as they asked a Texas bankruptcy judge to determine the fate of the leases of two Saks locations. Counsel for the parties made their closing arguments to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Alfredo R. Perez after three days of hearings on Simon's request for a ruling that it can terminate the leases without the notice periods in the leases themselves. The parties are disputing whether a letter agreement Simon and Saks entered into when Simon invested $100 million in Saks in 2024 allows Simon to terminate the leases of a Saks location in Woodbury, New York, and a Neiman Marcus store in Palo Alto, California, effective Jan. 8, six days before Saks declared bankruptcy and a stay on contract terminations went into effect. Both parties acknowledged that the agreement granted Simon the right to terminate the Palo Alto lease and one other lease for "failure to perform" on either lease and that Saks had overdue lease payments, but they disagreed on whether the letter overrode notice of default and cure period provisions in the leases that would have given Saks 30 days from its Jan. 8 notice to make up the payments. At Monday's hearing, Simon counsel Robert Velevis argued the default provisions in the leases were not relevant, saying the agreement specifically allowed termination for "failure to perform" and not "default." "The letter agreement does not give a cure period," it said. Saks counsel Allyson Smith argued the letter agreement doesn't define "failure to perform" but the leases do, and that definition includes cure rights. The sole purpose of the clause in the letter agreement was to give Simon the right to terminate the leases for a default on a different lease, she argued. She also argued calling a default on the leases was a break with the parties' standard relationship. She said Simon had always accepted late payments, for example when Saks disputed a particular charge and delayed payment until the dispute was reconciled. "There has always been an amount technically outstanding," she said. Velevis argued this only meant that Simon had the right to terminate the leases anytime after the agreement was signed, and only invoked it now for "its own reasons." Smith claimed Simon learned of Saks' plans to file and "manufactured a default" in order to seize the leases and prevent Saks from selling them in its Chapter 11. Judge Perez reserved decisions on the issue. Simon Property Group is represented by Duston K. McFaul, Robert S. Velevis, Jeri Leigh Miller and Maegan Quejada of Sidley Austin LLP. Saks is represented by Kelli S. Norfleet, Kenric D. Kattner, Arsalan Muhammad, Kourtney P. Lyda and David Trausch of Haynes Boone and Debra M. Sinclair, Robin Spigel, Allyson B. Smith, Betsy L. Feldman, Jessica D. Graber, Jennifer J. Hardy, Ryan B. Bennett, Stuart R. Lombardi and Nathaniel G. Ward of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. The case is In re: Saks Global Enterprises LLC et al., case number 4:26-bk-90103, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Mar 2

2 min

Willkie served as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in connection with Azul S.A.’s chapter 11 restructuring in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Sean H. Lane confirmed Azul’s reorganization plan on December 19, 2025, and Azul emerged from bankruptcy on February 20, 2026. Azul’s plan of reorganization, built around three separate restructuring support agreements and a settlement with the Committee, discussed below, significantly deleveraged the company, enhanced liquidity and operations, and preserved vendor relationships as well as over 15,000 Azul crewmember jobs. Notably, following months of hard-fought negotiations, the Committee reached a substantial settlement regarding the treatment of unsecured creditors under Azul’s chapter 11 plan, paving the way for the confirmation of the plan and Azul’s subsequent exit from chapter 11. The settlement represented a significant improvement over the treatment of unsecured creditors contemplated by Azul’s prepetition restructuring support agreements, which would have provided unsecured creditors with no distributions. Pursuant to the settlement, the chapter 11 plan established a trust for the benefit of unsecured creditors. The trust was funded with valuable assets, including warrants and a contingent value right that could provide unsecured creditors with material distributions from the trust in the future. The settlement also provided some unsecured creditors with certain cash payments on account of their claims. Azul is the largest airline in Brazil measured by cities served and direct domestic routes, with more than 800 daily flights to 137 destinations. With a fleet of approximately 200 aircraft, Azul operates a network of 250 direct routes. Azul’s flight network also includes select international destinations. The Willkie team was led by restructuring partners Brett Miller, Todd Goren and James Burbage and litigation partner Donald Burke with assistance from counsel Craig Damast, associates Joseph Brandt, Zachary Charlton, Marine Loison and Jessica Flynn, and law clerk Alexandra Hough.

Feb 26

1 min

Saks Global said on Tuesday it plans to close eight Saks Fifth Avenue stores and one Neiman Marcus location in the U.S., as it looks to boost its business through a Chapter 11 restructuring. In a motion filed in Texas bankruptcy court, the luxury retailer asked for leave to quickly shutter the nine locations, conduct store closing sales, and lay off over 600 employees. The closures and liquidation sales, which are projected to last from Feb. 20 through April 30, are part of a larger strategy to go all in on Saks' highest-end business and back away from discount sales, according to the motion. "The global debtors believe that these targeted store closings will allow the global debtors to better serve their luxury customers, strengthen brand partner relationships and drive full-price selling to enable sustainable, profitable growth," the motion read. Since Saks Global and related entities filed for bankruptcy in January, the retailer has been looking to close stores for its discount business lines, including most Saks Off 5th stores and all five remaining Neiman Marcus Last Call locations. The soon-to-be-closing Saks Fifth Avenue stores are located in New Orleans; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Tulsa, Okla.; and elsewhere, while the Neiman Marcus store is in Boston. Saks Global plans to continue closing Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus stores, which are part of its core non-discounted business lines, in order to shed locations with low sales or costly leases and focus on "profitable locations with the highest growth potential," the retailer said in a press release on Tuesday. "Opportunities within the luxury market remain strong, and Saks Global is primed to play a distinct, enduring role within the industry for many years to come," Geoffroy van Raemdonck, the CEO of Saks Global, said in a statement on Tuesday. In the motion, Saks Global requested approval for $3.5 million in severance for 615 employees at the affected stores, averaging about $5,690 per employee, with the actual sums paid out amounting to "no more than approximately $105,000 for any individual," according to the motion. The debtor requested that the court waive state and local laws governing liquidation sales. It also asked for a waiver of so-called "fast pay" laws requiring laid-off employees to be paid all money owed to them promptly within a few days of termination, saying its payroll department may be unable to meet certain legal deadlines due to the number of employees being terminated at one time. Saks Global is also closing most of the locations where it offers personal stylist services as a standalone business in cities without a Saks Fifth Avenue store, saying that business line has become largely redundant since its acquisition of Neiman Marcus. The personal styling business will remain in Indianapolis and Honolulu, and a soon-to-open location in West Palm Beach, Florida, is still projected to open, according to an announcement. Saks Global is also folding home goods retailer Horchow into the home goods section of Neiman Marcus, according to the press release. It filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 14 with about $3.4 billion in funded debt after struggling to deal with the debt it took on to purchase Neiman Marcus more than a year ago. Saks Global is represented by Nathaniel G. Ward, Jennifer J. Hardy, Debra M. Sinclair, Robin Spigel, Allyson B. Smith, Betsy L. Feldman, Jessica D. Graber, and Ryan Blaine Bennett of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Kelli Stephenson Norfleet, Kenric D. Kattner, Arsalan Muhammad, Kourtney P. Lyda, and David Trausch of Haynes Boone. The case is In re: Saks Global Enterprises LLC et al., case number 4:26-bk-90103, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Feb 10

3 min