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 […]
Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company CAFC Nos. 2024-1381, 2024-1382, 2024-1383, decided Dec. 23, 2025 (Chen, Clevenger, Hughes) Issue: Whether the Board exceeded its statutory authority by “staying” a rehearing petition for fifteen months before granting institution. Overview: Section 314(d) bars challenges to Board institution decisions even when framed as attacks on alleged procedural ultra vires acts like delayed reconsideration rulings. Background MIT/EBS own […]
In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC CAFC 2025-1075, decided Dec. 1, 2025 (Lourie, Bryson, and Chen) Issues: Whether IPR estoppel applies to ongoing ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) and requires their termination; whether the Board has jurisdiction over expired patents in EPR. Overview: IPR estoppel does not prevent the Patent Office from maintaining EPRs requested by IPR petitioner, and the Board retains jurisdiction over expired patents. Background Samsung requested EPR of Gesture’s ’431 patent relating to gesture-based computer sensing technology, which the Patent Office granted. Two […]
EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC Case No. 2024-1201, Decided November 25, 2025 Panel: Taranto, Stoll, Stark (opinion by Stark) Overview: The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Google under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and its denial of EscapeX’s motion to amend judgment under Rule 59(e). The […]
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc. Case No. 24-1571, Decided November 25, 2025 Panel: Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham Overview: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that certain claims of two patents directed to intelligent distribution networks for streaming media were invalid for indefiniteness and that remaining claims were not infringed. The decision clarifies the […]
Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC Case No. 2024-1466, Decided November 12, 2025 Panel: Moore, Prost, Taranto (opinion by Taranto) Overview: The Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that invalidated claims of Canatex’s patent for indefiniteness. The decision clarifies the standard for judicial correction of claim language errors and confirms that courts may correct obvious clerical mistakes when […]
Three Mandamus Petitions Denied (Nov. 6, 2025) Cases: In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 2025-134 (precedential) In re Google LLC, No. 2025-144 (non-precedential) In re SAP America, Inc., No. 2025-132 (non-precedential) Background: Motorola: Most severe impact—eight IPRs initially instituted were later deinstituted. Google & Samsung: Challenged denials despite Samsung’s Sotera stipulation. SAP: Similarly challenged discretionary denials after making […]