Courts Searched — May 2, 2026

Daily Summary

Date: May 2, 2026
Cases published: 5
Cases reviewed (no standalone summary): 50+
Cases reclassified (non-IP): 35+
Federal Circuit dispositions logged: 2
Total posts in sitemap: 669

Published Summaries

Case Court Date Topic
Eli Lilly v. Empower Clinic Services S.D. Texas Apr. 29 Lanham Act / Trademark
Maquet Cardiovascular v. Abiomed D. Massachusetts Apr. 8 Patent (Doctrine of Equivalents)
Spartan Composites v. Signature Systems E.D. Texas Apr. 30 Trade Secret (DTSA)
GEMA v. VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz CJEU Apr. 30 Copyright (EU)
Columbia Sportswear v. Columbia University D. Oregon May 1 Trademark

Federal Circuit Dispositions

Two nonprecedential procedural orders were logged to the May 2026 Federal Circuit Dispositions page:

  • VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC (25-1854) — Voluntary dismissal under FRAP Rule 42(b)
  • Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHz, LLC (25-1514) — Nonprecedential dismissal order

Courts Searched Today

Court / Source Method IP Opinions Found
U.S. Supreme Court Ingestion pipeline + web search None (Hikma v. Amarin skinny-labels argument held Apr. 29; decision pending)
Federal Circuit CAFC website + ingestion + web search 2 procedural orders (May 1); no new opinions May 2
All U.S. Circuit Courts (1st–11th, D.C.) Ingestion pipeline (per-circuit) None with new substantive IP opinions
U.S. District Courts GovInfo aggregator + per-court ingestion 3 published (Eli Lilly, Maquet, Spartan); 40+ docket entries reviewed — most were filings, not opinions
PTAB Web search + Law360 leads 1 mixed IPR decision identified via Law360 lead (details behind paywall)
TTAB Law360 leads 1 cancellation identified (Everwise Credit Union — routine, not published standalone)
ITC Web search None

State Courts

State courts searched today: California, New York, Texas, Delaware, Illinois, Florida — no IP/AI opinions identified for this date range.

Foreign and International Courts

Court IP Opinions Found
CJEU 1 published — GEMA v. VHC 2 Seniorenresidenz (C-127/24), copyright
UK Courts (Patents Court, IPEC) None identified for this date range
Federal Court of Canada None for this date range (ProSlide v. WhiteWater West, March 2026, noted)
Federal Court of Australia None for May 2 specifically (NOCO v. Brown & Watson, April 2026, noted)
India (Delhi HC, Bombay HC) None for this date range (Flipkart MARQ v MARC, April 10, noted)
Unified Patent Court None confirmed for this date
EPO Boards of Appeal None confirmed for this date
Germany (BGH, BPatG) None confirmed for this date
France (Cour de cassation, TJ Paris) None confirmed for this date
Italy (Corte di Cassazione) None confirmed for this date
Spain (Tribunal Supremo) None confirmed for this date
Netherlands (Hoge Raad) None confirmed for this date
Switzerland (Bundesgericht) None confirmed for this date
Sweden (Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen) None confirmed for this date
Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) None confirmed for this date
Japan (IP High Court, JPO) None confirmed for this date
Korea (Supreme Court, Patent Court) None confirmed for this date
China (SPC, specialized IP courts) None confirmed for this date
Brazil (STJ) None confirmed for this date
Mexico (Suprema Corte) None confirmed for this date
Russia (IP Court) None confirmed for this date
New Zealand (High Court) None confirmed for this date
Singapore (SICC, IPOS) None confirmed for this date
South Africa (SCA) None confirmed for this date

Courts with Access Limitations

The following courts do not publish opinions in a publicly accessible, searchable format that permits same-day or next-day retrieval. Language is not a barrier — our system reads opinions natively in German, French, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and other languages. The limitations below are structural access issues only:

  • China specialized IP courts: Opinions are published on court-specific websites with limited search functionality and delayed indexing.
  • Russia IP Court: Access intermittently restricted from international servers.

Commentary Leads Processed

50 Law360 IP commentary leads were reviewed. Of these:

  • 1 was published as a standalone summary (Columbia Sportswear v. Columbia University)
  • 5 contained substantive rulings but lacked sufficient publicly available detail for full summaries (TTAB Everwise, PTAB memory tech, Schrader Cellars v. Roach, BASF v. Duracell [under seal], Citigroup trade secret)
  • 24 were non-case-specific commentary, hiring news, profiles, or analysis pieces — reclassified as non-IP
  • 7 were pending motions without rulings — marked for future monitoring
  • 13 were case-specific but involved settlements, new filings, or procedural matters without publishable holdings

Pipeline Statistics

Ingestion sources run: 23 (all active sources). Publish_pending: 0 engine-generated summaries pending. Non-IP cases reclassified: 35+. Cases linked to existing posts or dispositions page: 3.

Scroll to Top