-
January 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erroneously required a health care company to provide proof for the motivation to combine prior art references “because the prior art reference expressly discloses performing those steps in sequence,” a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled.
-
January 27, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge should have issued judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding that asserted claims in a tire pressure patent were rendered obvious as per certain prior art combinations, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held.
-
January 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent-holding company tells the U.S. Supreme Court that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was wrong to affirm a Florida federal judge’s entry of sanctions against it, in part because the appeals court did not rely on the District Court’s primary bad faith finding.
-
January 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Washington federal judge’s dismissal of a patent owner’s infringement complaint against Google LLC, determining in the Jan. 22 opinion that the asserted claims of the patent are directed at an unpatentable abstract idea without a necessary inventive concept.
-
January 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that issue preclusion barred the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) from adjudicating the validity of a patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Apple Inc.; the panel reversed the PTAB’s finding that Apple failed to show that the patent claim was invalid as obvious.
-
January 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 21 affirmed a Minnesota federal judge’s refusal to grant a patent owner’s posttrial request for judgment as a matter of law of infringement and patent validity, but the panel vacated portions of the judge’s final order that improperly applied to unasserted patent claims.
-
January 21, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A split Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 20 reversed a Pennsylvania federal judge’s decision to exclude two expert witnesses in a dispute brought by a physician who claims DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities induced surgeons to infringe certain claims of his patents; the panel majority held that the judge wrongly treated claim construction and survey methodology questions as admissibility issues and not questions for a jury.
-
January 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A video game console made by Nintendo Co. Ltd. does not infringe another gaming company’s patent for a type of handheld gaming device because Nintendo’s accused device did not meet certain claim requirements, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed Jan. 16.
-
January 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 16 granted a bioequivalent pharmaceutical maker’s petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to consider its challenge to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that the petitioner’s “skinny label” generic version of a prescription cardiovascular medication constituted reverse infringement.
-
January 15, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Comcast Cable Communications LLC tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was wrong to vacate a Florida federal judge’s judgment of noninfringement in its favor, arguing that the finding was based on deciding sua sponte a nonjurisdictional issue that was deliberately waived by the patent holder.
-
January 15, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 14 opinion, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that the claims of a pet food company’s packaging container patent application were unpatentable as obvious.
-
January 15, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a short opinion issued Jan. 14, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a California federal judge’s entry of summary judgment of noninfringement to Apple Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought against it by another technology entity, agreeing that Apple’s accused product does not meet claim limitations required under the judge’s unchallenged claim constructions.
-
January 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly construed a claim phrase requiring bidirectional antennas during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Apple Inc., the board erred by failing to address alternate arguments raised by Apple in response to the patent holder’s proposed claim construction, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Jan. 13.
-
January 13, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) designated as precedential four discretionary decisions issued last summer concerning when to approve or deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR); among the findings now designated precedential is the advice that petitions from “time-barred parties should proceed only in exceptional circumstances.”
-
January 13, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued two decisions on Jan. 12 that it designated as precedential; both decisions concern the PTO and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion in granting petitions.
-
January 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) was correct to issue a summary determination against a patent holder that accused technology companies of wrongfully importing allegedly infringing two types of network service devices, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Jan. 9.
-
January 09, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 8 affirmed a district court order granting Apple Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on claims that it violated federal antitrust law and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by impairing a competitor’s heart rate tracking app tailored for the Apple Watch to monopolize the market, finding that Apple’s refusal to share algorithm data with third-party app developers was considered a “refusal to deal” and the competitor failed to show an exception to the antitrust principle that there is no duty to deal.
-
January 08, 2026
PHOENIX — An Arizona federal judge on Jan. 7 ordered Juul Labs Inc. (JLI), NJOY LLC, Altria Group Inc. and affiliates to file a joint statement under seal “that describes the resolution” of a discovery dispute in a patent lawsuit after JLI said the parties reached “an agreement” relating to allegedly privileged documents JLI “inadvertently” uploaded to a public database, which NJOY described as “evidence of the fraud [JLI] committed to obtain its patents from the Patent Office.”
-
January 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Substantial evidence supported a finding by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims in a patent describing a system for error correction in flash memory devices were invalid as obvious, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held in a nonprecedential Jan. 7 opinion.
-
January 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 7 largely affirmed findings by a California federal judge and a federal jury that a patent-owning technology company failed to show that a defendant entity directly infringed a patent describing camera-assisted parking management technology; however, the panel ordered a new trial on the on-sale bar and a federal unfair competition claim.
-
January 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge was correct to find that two claims in a patent describing systems for decoding wireless transmissions are invalid as abstract, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Jan. 6, holding that the claims point only to abstract ideas without the necessary inventive element to make them patent eligible.
-
January 06, 2026
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge granted HDMI Licensing Administrator Inc.’s (HDMI LA) motion for summary judgment on a breach of contract claim it brought against a technology company it said failed to pay royalties related to HDMI technology; the judge also held that the defendant entity failed to show that HDMI LA’s licensing agreement violated antitrust, patent or trademark law.
-
January 05, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel saw no legal or factual errors in the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) affirmation of a patent examiner’s finding that all challenged claims in an internet telephone patent were unpatentable as obvious, seeing no error in how PTAB construed “telephone” or other elements.
-
January 05, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Illinois federal judge’s decision to grant summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of SC Johnson & Son Inc. (SCJ), agreeing with the judge that SCJ’s accused Ziploc reusable silicone container products lacked a “spout” required by the plaintiff-appellant’s patent claims.
-
December 30, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed findings of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that all challenged claims in a series of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerning a fuel system aiming to reduce engine knocking were unpatentable as obvious.