Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp. CAFC No. 2024-2160, Decided May 4, 2026 (Lourie, Prost, Burroughs) Background: Enviro Tech sued Safe Foods in the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging infringement of claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–19, 21–24, 26–29, and 31–33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321. The ’321 patent is directed to methods […]
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company CAFC No. 2024-1094, Decided Apr. 16, 2026 (Prost, Cunningham, Andrews) Background: D. Mass.: Teva sued Lilly, alleging Lilly’s Emgality product infringed three “headache patents” covering methods of treating headache with humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies. Teva also asserted separate antibody patents. The headache patents claimed methods […]
Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. CAFC No. 2024-1822, Decided Apr. 28, 2026 (Lourie, Stoll, Oetken) Background: E.D. Tex.: Constellation sued LG, alleging that LG’s TV products infringed patents relating to improving how digital information is transmitted over the air to televisions. The accused LG TVs used the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, which Constellation […]
Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC CAFC No. 2024-1761, Decided April 14, 2026 (Moore, Dyk, Cunningham) Background: D. Utah: Definitive sued Powerteq for infringing the ’689 patent (priority date: March 30, 2001). The asserted claims cover a method for upgrading software in an engine controller and an apparatus for upgrading software in an engine controller. Powerteq moved for summary judgment of invalidity […]
Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc. Case No. 2024-2313, decided April 2, 2026 (Lourie, Hughes, Kleeh) Issues: Whether an omitted coinventor is a “party concerned” under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b) entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before judicial correction of inventorship. Whether a patent that omits an inventor and cannot […]
Gramm v. Deere & Company Case No. 2024-1598, decided March 11, 2026 (Reyna, Lourie, Cunningham) Issues: Whether the district court erred in holding a means-plus-function limitation indefinite for lack of an algorithm; whether corresponding structure may be excluded because it does not perform an additional, unclaimed function. Overview: The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment […]
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al. Case No. 24-171, decided March 25, 2026 (Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Sotomayor concurring in the judgment, joined by Jackson) Issues: Whether an internet service provider is contributorily liable for users’ copyright infringement merely because it continued providing internet service to subscribers associated […]
Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1794, Decided March 3, 2026 (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto; Non-Precedential) Overview: When known problems in the field are virtually a motivation to combine. Facts/Background Medivis filed an IPR challenging Novarad’s patent (11,004,271) under § 102 in view of Doo reference and § 103 in view of Doo and Amira references. The ’271 patent is directed to 3D medical augmented reality (AR) technology that projects data on a patient in real time. Doo […]
Regenexbio Inc., Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1408, Decided February 20, 2026 (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll; Precedential) Overview: Naturally, genetically engineered cells are not naturally occurring. Facts/Background Regenexbio filed a patent infringement suit against Sarepta asserting US Pat. 10,526,617. The ’617 patent is directed to host cells that have been genetically engineered to express a gene […]
Implicit, LLC. v. Sonos, Inc. (with USPTO as intervenor) CAFC Opinion No. 2020-1173, 2020-1174, Decided March 9, 2026 (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham; Precedential) Overview: When is it too late to play the inventorship game? Facts/Background Sonos petitioned for IPR of the ’791 and ’252 patents on §§ 102 and 103 grounds in view of Janevski (US 7,269,338). Janevski predates the effective filing date of the patents, but Implicit argues that the invention was reduced to practice prior to […]