Federal Circuit patent decisions
The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law that DISH Network’s AutoHop commercial-skipping feature does not infringe ClearPlay’s content-filtering patents, finding that AutoHop uses categorical on/off settings rather than directly disabling individual navigation objects.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s reduction of an $82 million jury verdict for breach of contract to just $3, and held that trade secret plaintiffs have a statutory right to pursue unjust enrichment damages under both the DTSA and Michigan’s trade secrets act.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that all 17 claims of Pictometry’s patent on measuring roofs from aerial imagery are unpatentable as obvious over prior art combining roof-measurement and marker-locking references.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that all claims of a synchronized-browsing patent were unpatentable as obvious, rejecting the patent holder’s bid to narrowly construe the key claim term “web browsing interaction data.”
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Lupin’s generic tolvaptan manufacturing process does not infringe Otsuka’s patents and that certain synthesis method claims are obvious, clearing the way for a generic version of the kidney disease drug JYNARQUE®.
The Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal for lack of standing, holding that a patent owner who grants an exclusive license but retains the right to sue, a sublicensing veto, and royalty interests retains a sufficient exclusionary right for Article III standing.
In a companion case to ALM Holding v. Zydex, the Federal Circuit held that Medtronic Ireland retained Article III standing to assert patent infringement counterclaims despite licensing exclusive rights to an affiliate, because it kept the right to sue, sublicensing veto, and royalty interests.
The full Federal Circuit denied en banc rehearing of its February 2026 panel decision affirming a $71.4 million verdict for infringement of Willis Electric’s pre-lit Christmas tree connector patent, rejecting Polygroup’s challenge to the damages expert methodology.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement case involving a unified electronic banking system, finding surviving claims obvious in light of an IPR outcome, but reversed both the exceptional-case attorney fee award and sanctions against counsel, holding that mere invalidity is insufficient for Section 285 fees.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Actelion’s patent claims requiring a bulk solution with ‘a pH of 13 or higher’ refer to pH measured at standard temperature (25±2°C), not at the solution’s actual operating temperature, finding no literal or equivalent infringement by Mylan’s generic epoprostenol drug.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Samsung’s 2012 sales agreement with Finelite unambiguously incorporated a full contract of sale that limited Samsung’s indemnification obligations to Hong Kong — where title to LED chips passed — leaving Finelite without indemnity coverage for U.S. patent infringement claims brought by Seoul Semiconductor.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that claims of Universal Electronics’ remote control codeset patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,847,083) are unpatentable as obvious, agreeing with the Board’s broad construction of ‘protocol and formatting information’ as ‘information needed to transmit a signal from one device to another in a way that the receiving device can make sense of and use the signal.’
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se challenge to the PTO’s denial of micro-entity status, holding that inventors who admit they are obligated to assign their patent application lack Article III standing to contest the associated fee determination.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s final determination that Tineco’s redesigned wet-dry surface cleaning devices do not infringe Bissell’s patents, while upholding infringement findings against the original products.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s exceptional-case finding and attorney fee award to Nextremity after an IPR invalidated Extremity Medical’s orthopedic implant patent, but denied fees for the IPR proceedings themselves.
In a split decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that most claims of Metrom Rail’s collision-avoidance patents are obvious, and reversed the Board’s ruling that had saved four remaining claims — holding that the Board applied an incorrect claim construction.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision not to consider a new prior art reference raised for the first time in the petitioner’s reply brief, leaving one claim of a networked-gaming patent standing.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that a patent infringement case was ‘exceptional’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285, upholding an attorney fee award where the plaintiff never pursued discovery or demonstrated any evidence of infringement.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent for automatically silencing a mobile phone when it pairs with a vehicle is directed to the abstract idea of screening notifications and lacks an inventive concept under Alice.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Enviro Tech’s poultry-processing patent was invalid because the term “about” in its pH range limitations failed to inform skilled artisans of the claim scope with reasonable certainty.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that Wildseed Mobile’s targeted mobile advertising patent claims are unpatentable as obvious, rejecting the patent owner’s narrow construction of ‘information taken from a message.’
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Cisco’s products do not infringe three Centripetal network security patents, reaching the opposite result from the original bench trial that was vacated due to the judge’s failure to disclose his wife’s Cisco stock ownership.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent for monitoring vehicles using RFID detection and operator identification is directed to the abstract idea of detecting, transmitting, and processing data, and lacks any inventive concept to survive Alice scrutiny.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s construction of ‘short range’ as a relative term and upheld the invalidation of one claim, but vacated and remanded on four other claims where the Board failed to address FedEx’s argument about power management instructions.
In the latest chapter of this high-profile patent dispute, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement on three cybersecurity packet-filtering patents, after the original $2.75 billion verdict was vacated due to a judicial recusal issue.
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.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s $11.125 million verdict in a DSL standard-essential patent dispute, rejecting TQ Delta’s challenges to noninfringement and invalidity findings on two of its patents while upholding the damages award on four others.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement as to one version of Google’s Content ID system, finding genuine disputes of material fact remain over whether the system performs a ‘sublinear’ search as required by Network-1’s video fingerprinting patent.
Federal Circuit affirms PTAB ruling that claims of Slingshot Printing’s inkjet printer semiconductor substrate patent are obvious over prior-art printhead designs.
Federal Circuit affirms PTAB unpatentability of most claims of Centripetal Networks’ cybersecurity patent, then reverses PTAB on cross-appeal to find all 20 claims obvious — wiping out the patent entirely.
Federal Circuit affirms ITC finding of no Section 337 violation in Centripetal Networks’ cybersecurity patent dispute against Keysight Technologies, citing failure to satisfy the domestic industry technical prong.
Federal Circuit affirms that two augmented-reality patents asserted against Pokémon Go and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite are invalid as abstract ideas under § 101.
Federal Circuit revives one patent claim against YouTube’s Siberia Content ID system while affirming two others invalid for indefiniteness.
The Federal Circuit dismissed a §101 patent eligibility appeal as moot after discovering the parties’ settlement agreement gave the defendant a $100 option to license the challenged patent — an amount so untethered from the patent’s value that it created no real case or controversy.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decisions invalidating Katana Silicon’s semiconductor stacking patents after holding that “adhesion layer” means any layer that adheres, not only a pre-formed solid sheet, bringing the claims within the scope of prior art.
The Federal Circuit reversed a $17 million trade secret verdict, holding that design concepts disclosed in prior patents are generally known and unprotectable as trade secrets even if never commercialized, while affirming a $1 million Lanham Act counterfeiting judgment.
The Federal Circuit denied FullView’s § 1292(b) petition to take an immediate appeal from district court rulings that invalidated some patent claims under § 101 and excluded FullView’s damages expert, leaving both rulings in place until final judgment.
The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment invalidating Teva’s method-of-treatment patents covering anti-CGRP antibodies for migraines, distinguishing Amgen v. Sanofi and reinstating a jury verdict against Eli Lilly.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s cancellation of MRI’s outdoor display cooling patent claims via Rule 36, completing Samsung’s successful IPR challenge to the patent family.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s cancellation of AG 18’s networked gaming patent claims asserted against DraftKings (now DK Crown Holdings) via Rule 36 summary affirmance.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement of a multi-core processor patent, holding that a pretrial stipulation establishing a 70% U.S. nexus applied to infringement — not just damages — and that prosecution history did not clearly disclaim the broader scope of apparatus claims.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689 — covering methods and apparatus for reprogramming automotive engine controllers — was invalid under the pre-AIA on-sale bar, holding that source code commands are not hearsay and that selling a device embodying a patented method triggers the bar even if the device’s inner workings were not publicly disclosed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that Universal Electronics’ voice-input remote control patent claims were unpatentable as obvious, in the latest chapter of the long-running patent battle between the two consumer electronics companies.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB dismissal of cigar maker Fuente Marketing Ltd.s opposition to a vape-pen design mark, holding that despite overlapping goods and channels, the distinct commercial impression of Vaporous Technologies stick-figure design mark defeated likelihood of confusion with Fuentes standard-character X marks.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that patent claims directed to operating an information exchange are ineligible abstract ideas under Section 101, holding that generic computing instructions lack an inventive concept.
The Federal Circuit dismissed ironSource’s appeal of a PTAB post-grant review decision, holding that ironSource failed to demonstrate Article III standing because its evidence did not address the substitute claims actually at issue.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that imported marine air conditioning systems did not violate Section 337, holding that the asserted patent claims were anticipated by prior art and the accused products did not infringe remaining claims.
In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit held that patents listing incorrect inventors are invalid when the omitted coinventor cannot be found to receive the notice and hearing required by 35 U.S.C. Section 256(b).
The Federal Circuit vacated a $600 million patent infringement judgment against Norton (Gen Digital), holding that Columbia University’s computer virus-detection patent claims are directed to abstract ideas under Alice Step 1, and denied en banc rehearing.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patents for sharing content using unique identifiers and location data are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept under Section 101.