Federal Circuit IP
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 CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1794, Decided March 3, 2026 (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto; Non-Precedential) Overview: When known problems in the field are virtually a motivation to combine.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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
Federal Circuit IP
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 […]
Read More
