Hikma Pharms. USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharms., Inc. (S. Ct. June 4, 2026) (Jackson) Overview: A claim for active inducement requires clear and affirmative steps, not merely speculative conduct or vague language, especially when there are substantial non-infringing uses. Facts / Procedural History Amarin developed Vascepa, a branded drug, and was FDA-approved for treatment […]
Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, dissent by Prost) Overview: The DTSA SOL period may begin when the plaintiff knows of access to trade secrets plus a similar competing product, even before detailed proof of misappropriation. Facts / Procedural History Insulet manufactures an adhesive wearable insulin patch pump called the […]
Bissell, Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (Stoll, Moore, Taranto) Overview: Firmware redesign can provide a non-infringing workaround to an ITC exclusion order. Facts / Procedural History At the ITC, Bissell asserted patents directed at floor cleaners with a self-cleaning mode. All asserted claims required that the battery remain disabled throughout the self-cleaning Tineco […]
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 […]