Author name: Gary

District Courts, Trademark, Federal

Impossible Foods v. Impossible X — Court Denies Laches Defense After Jury Finds Willful Trademark Infringement, Awards Fees and Permanent Injunction

After a jury found Impossible Foods willfully infringed a smaller company’s IMPOSSIBLE trademark on apparel and a cookbook, a federal judge denied laches, awarded attorney fees, and permanently enjoined Impossible Foods from using ‘Impossible’ as a standalone mark on apparel and cookbooks.

International Trade Commission, Utility Patent

Infineon v. Innoscience — ITC Import Ban on GaN Chips Takes Effect, But Only for Discontinued Products

The U.S. ITC’s limited exclusion order against Innoscience’s GaN power devices became effective July 7, 2026 after the Presidential Review Period expired, but the ruling’s practical impact is narrow: only two claims of Infineon’s ‘481 patent were found infringed, and only by Innoscience’s already-discontinued legacy products.

District Courts, Utility Patent

Maquet v. Abiomed — Court Issues Three Pre-Trial Rulings on Blood Pump Patent, Preserves Written Description Challenge but Strikes Indefiniteness and Means-Plus-Function Arguments

In three pre-trial rulings, the District of Massachusetts denied summary judgment on Abiomed’s written description defense, eliminated its indefiniteness arguments, declined to kill the reverse doctrine of equivalents, and found waiver on a last-minute means-plus-function claim construction bid — setting the stage for trial on Maquet’s intravascular blood pump patent.

Copyright, District Courts

Nazemian v. NVIDIA — Court Allows AI Copyright Training Claims to Proceed, Applies Cox Framework to Dataset Scripts

A federal judge denied most of NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss a class action alleging the company trained AI models on pirated books, finding that dataset download scripts ‘have no other purpose than to speed up the process of infringement’ and that the Supreme Court’s Cox ruling does not shield NVIDIA from contributory liability.

EU Courts, Utility Patent

Gilead Sciences v. Academy of Military Medical Sciences — UPC Revokes Chinese Military Institute’s Remdesivir COVID-19 Patent for Lack of Inventive Step

The UPC Central Division in Milan revoked the Academy of Military Medical Sciences’ European patent on the use of remdesivir to treat COVID-19, finding the claimed invention lacked inventive step because prior art published just ten days before the priority date already identified remdesivir as likely effective against the newly emerged Wuhan coronavirus.

District Courts, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Orion Labs Tech v. TalkDesk — Court Invalidates Six AI Bot Patents Under Alice but Spares Real-Time Translation Patent

A Northern District of California court dismissed six AI bot patents as ineligible under Alice but spared a seventh — a real-time translation patent — finding its claims specified how a remote server achieves multilingual group communication, rather than merely claiming the abstract idea of translation.

Federal Circuit, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics — Federal Circuit Vacates § 101 Eligibility for Functional “Optimization” Claims, Affirms Eligibility for Specific Non-Uniform Constellation Claims

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit drew a sharp § 101 line between functional ‘optimization’ claims that recite a result without specifying a concrete configuration and ‘constellation’ claims that recite specific non-uniform point arrangements. It vacated summary judgment of eligibility for the former and affirmed eligibility for the latter, while affirming the underlying jury verdict, willful-infringement finding, and damages award against LG.

Ninth Circuit, Section 230

Doe v. Meta Platforms — Ninth Circuit Holds Section 230 Bars Claims Over Facebook’s Role in Myanmar Genocide

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims by Rohingya plaintiffs alleging Facebook’s algorithm amplified anti-Rohingya violence in Myanmar, holding that Section 230 immunizes Meta from liability for algorithmically recommending third-party content — though two concurring opinions urged the court to reconsider its broad reading of Section 230.

Scroll to Top