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 CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1794, Decided March 3, 2026 (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto; Non-Precedential) Overview: When known problems in the field are virtually a motivation to combine.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 […]
Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies Nos. 2023-2226, 2023-2234 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2026) (Prost, Taranto, and Stark) Issues: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by excluding Barry’s technical expert and survey expert at trial and granting JMOL. Holding: Reversed and remanded. The Federal Circuit held the District Court abused its discretion in excluding both experts and erred in granting JMOL. Background: Barry sued DePuy for […]
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc. No. 2023-2427 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2026) (Moore, C.J., Hughes, and Cunningham) Precedential Design Patent Case Issues: Whether the District Court (1) improperly narrowed the D’155 design claim by treating key features as functional, and (2) properly granted SJ of noninfringement under the ordinary observer test. Holding: Affirmed. The District Court (1) properly distinguished functional vs. ornamental aspects of the design […]
Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC No. 2024-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (Prost, Wallach, and Chen) Precedential Utility Patent Case Issues: Whether Hulu’s accused streaming systems infringe method claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213, where the District Court required the first two method steps to be performed in the order written. Holding: Affirmed. Claim 16 requires the first two steps […]
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC CAFC Nos. 2023-2007, 2023-2095, decided Dec. 18, 2025 (Lourie, Schall, Stoll) Issues: Whether state bad faith patent assertion statute preempted by federal law; whether district court abused its discretion in imposing $8M bond. Overview: District court bond orders under state bad faith patent assertion statutes are not immediately appealable as interlocutory orders. Background Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement […]