Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 2024-1072, 2025 WL 2799030 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2025) (Stoll, J., Dyk, J., Prost, J.) Issue: At issue was whether the expert properly apportioned value from a multi-patent license and whether the district court erred in denying JMOL of noninfringement and invalidity. Facts/Procedural Posture: Rex sued Intuitive […]
Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2024-1039, 2025 WL 2713518 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025) (Moore, C.J., Linn, J., Cunningham, J.) Issue: At issue was whether plaintiff’s contradictory expert testimony supported the jury’s finding of infringement and damages award. Facts/Procedural Posture: Finesse sued AT&T and Nokia in the E.D. Texas alleging infringement of […]
Bayer Pharma AG v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2023-2434, 2025 WL 2698408 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2025) (Moore, C.J., Cunningham, J., Scarsi, J.) Issues: At issue was whether claim language “clinically proven effective” was non-limiting and whether the claim language, “first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin,” required a single dosage form containing both drugs or […]
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc. CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1177, Decided August 11, 2025, (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi (District Judge)), (Precedential) Overview: Claims eligible, offers guidance on the boundaries of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Facts/Procedural Posture: PowerBlock filed suit in the District of Utah, alleging that iFit infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 (the ’771 patent) […]
Ingenico v. Ioengine CAFC Opinion No. 23-1367, Decided May 7, 2025; (Hughes, Dyk, Prost); (Precedential) Overview: Circumstantial evidence (e.g., emails, press releases, website) can demonstrate that publicly downloadable software was actually used and IPR estoppel covers only grounds that could have been raised in the IPR. Facts/Procedural Posture: Ingenico filed a DJ action (6/1/18) concerning PayPal’s accused […]
Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Lipa, No. 22 CIV. 1872 (KPF), 2025 WL 936536 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025) Issue: Under copyright law, is a combination of individual, non-copyrightable elements of a creative work protectable? Holding: In this case, no. There is no substantial similarity (and thus no copyright violation) because the similarity between the works concerns […]
CAFC No. 2023-1762, Decided March 6, 2025 (Lourie, Dyk, and Prost) Background: USPTO: Immunogen filed the ’809 application in 2014; rejected (indefiniteness, obviousness, and obviousness-type double patenting). PTAB: ImmunoGen appeals to PTAB, which affirms the examiner’s rejection. D. Va.: 2020-2021, ImmunoGen files suit in E.D. Va. seeking a judgment declaring entitlement to a patent. Court […]
CAFC No. 2023-2054, Decided March 4, 2025 (MOORE, SCHALL, TARANTO) Background: Restem filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of claims 1–15 of Jadi Cell’s ‘176 patent. The PTAB ruled in favor of Jadi Cell, LLC, holding that Restem failed to prove unpatentability. Prior art (Majore) did not inherently anticipate the claimed stem cells. The […]
CAFC No. 2023-1217, Decided Feb. 13, 2025 (DYK, Chen, Stoll) Background: USS filed a complaint with the ITC, alleging various diamond material companies were importing and selling polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) products that infringed five USS patents, including the ‘502 patent. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found infringement but ruled the claims ineligible under § […]
CAFC Opinion No. 2023-2218, 2023-2220, 2023-2221, Decided Jan. 10, 2025 (Lourie, Prost, Reyna) Overview: Written description must be assessed based on knowledge in the art at the time of filing. Background Novartis owns the ’659 patent, which claims administering valsartan and sacubitril in combination, and covers Entresto (a valsartan-sacubitril complex), an FDA-approved drug used to […]