-
April 29, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Crocs Inc.’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s January opinion that held that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) did not abuse its discretion by granting a limited exclusion order (LEO) and not a general exclusion order (GEO) to Crocs against defaulting defendants accused of importing products that infringed or diluted its trademarks.
-
April 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Texas federal judge’s denial of a technology company’s request for a new merits trial and a new trial on damages; the panel held that substantial evidence supported a jury’s findings that the company failed to show that one of its asserted patents describing digital subscriber line (DSL) technology was infringed and that another asserted patent was invalidated by prior art references.
-
April 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across two opinions, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed losses for a technology company before both the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), agreeing with findings that the company’s patent claims were invalid as obvious and that it failed to show that a competitor company violated a section of the Tariff Act by importing allegedly infringing products.
-
April 27, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a technology company’s petition for a writ of certiorari in an April 27 order list, turning down a request to hear arguments that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly affirmed a California federal judge’s entry of more than $250,000 in attorney fees and additional sanctions against the company’s counsel for bringing a suit the judge found to be obviously meritless.
-
April 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a gene therapy product maker’s petition for rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s finding that a Delaware federal judge wrongly concluded that a patent’s claims involving genetically engineered cultured host cells containing a recombinant nucleic acid molecule were directed to a natural phenomenon.
-
April 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a mixed result, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 23 affirmed a New York federal judge’s finding that some patent claims asserted against Google LLC and YouTube LLC in an infringement dispute were invalid as indefinite but reversed summary judgment as to other claims; the panel held that factual questions remained regarding whether an accused Google Content ID system met a claim limitation requiring a “‘sublinear’” search.
-
April 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An option in a settlement agreement to license a patent for only $100 is not enough for a plaintiff-appellant technology company to establish a live case or controversy, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, dismissing as moot the company’s challenge to a Massachusetts federal judge’s finding that the patent was invalid as abstract.
-
April 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In two opinions, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that the evidence did not support a California federal jury’s determination that defendant medical entities in a sprawling dispute over a cosmetic penile implant device had misappropriated trade secrets; the panel found that all alleged trade secrets had been publicly disclosed in prior art patents.
-
April 17, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a New Jersey federal judge’s denial of a preliminary injunction requested by appellants Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech Inc., agreeing that the appellants had failed to show irreparable harm caused through Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. by an alleged breach of the settlement in an earlier patent dispute.
-
April 17, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 16 reversed a Massachusetts federal judge’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity on patents held by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and its American affiliate for lack of written description and enablement; the panel found that a reasonable jury could have found that the invention involved a well-known class of antibodies, rather than a novel genus.
-
April 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a California federal judge’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Intel Corp., holding that a stipulation between Intel and the patent holder establishes a U.S. nexus, contrary to the judge’s finding of extraterritoriality.
-
April 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Utah federal judge’s finding that certain claims of a patent describing a system of programming vehicle controllers were invalid in view of a prior art reference that was on sale before the claimed device’s “critical date”; the panel rejected the appellant’s argument that the judge relied on inadmissible evidence in reaching the decision.
-
April 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appellant technology company failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of injury in fact based on the risk of future litigation stemming from substitute patent claims, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, dismissing the company’s appeal that challenged a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision to allow amendment of the patent.
-
April 15, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petitioner bioequivalent pharmaceutical maker that is arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that a patent holder’s complaint failed to state a claim for induced infringement because the “skinny label” generic version of the patent carved out the patented cardiovascular use of the drug is pointing to a recent high court ruling that cleared an internet service provider of vicarious liability for copyright infringement on the part of its customers.
-
April 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a win for Roku Inc. in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings the company sought, rejecting an appellant technology company’s argument that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) adopted a theory introduced by Roku for the first time in a reply brief.
-
April 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not improperly conclude that a user guide for a web security system is a publicly accessible prior art reference, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held; the panel also affirmed PTAB’s finding that the user guide thus anticipates all claims of a patent describing a decryption system.
-
April 10, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware granted a motion for a judgment on the pleadings from the maker of massively successful mobile phone video games like Pokémon GO, agreeing with the company that a patent asserted against the game studio was invalid for being directed at the abstract concept of determining a player’s location.
-
April 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly denied relief to an air conditioning patent holder that claimed that certain products imported into the United States infringed its patents; the panel affirmed findings that certain claims of the patent were invalid as anticipated, while the remaining claims required elements that the accused products lacked.
-
April 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it described as a matter of first impression, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Indiana federal judge’s findings that a fencing manufacturer could not correct a patent to add the name of an undisputed co-inventor who could not be contacted because the co-inventor was a “party concerned” for correction proceedings; the panel also agreed that the patents were invalid for omitting the co-inventor.
-
April 03, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly construed some claims but correctly construed others during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Tesla Inc. regarding a patent describing electric vehicle charging systems, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, leading the panel to affirm some of PTAB’s findings but vacate and reverse others.
-
April 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge rightly granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of defendant-appellee entities accused of infringing a patent describing air purifying technology because the patent applicant explicitly narrowed the scope of patent claims during prosecution history to exclude the type of reflective surfaces present in the accused devices, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 1.
-
April 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amicus curiae public interest law firm argues in its March 31 brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for rehearing en banc by DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities, echoing DePuy’s claims that a split panel’s decision to reverse a Pennsylvania federal court’s exclusion of two expert witnesses’ testimony on induced infringement constitutes a departure from recent Federal Circuit en banc precedent.
-
April 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on March 31 held that a California federal judge correctly ruled that the asserted claim of a technology company that accused TikTok Inc. and related entities of infringement was invalid as abstract for lack of details on how to implement the claim; the panel agreed that the asserted claim does no more than describe the abstract concept of personalizing content based on a user’s profile.
-
March 31, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Biopharmaceutical company Sanofi was one of multiple entities to file amicus curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of respondent biopharmaceutical entities in a dispute over the standard for the inducement of infringement to be applied in medical patent cases, including “skinny label cases” involving allegedly noninfringing use. Sanofi tells the court that a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finding that the patent holders plausibly stated an infringement claim should be affirmed.
-
March 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 30 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from a biotechnology company that told the high court that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly shifted the burden of proof to the patentee; the Supreme Court thus left in place the Federal Circuit’s affirmaance of a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that rendered claims of the company’s patents describing gene-editing technologies invalid as anticipated.