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 Supreme Court denied certiorari in CPC Patent Technologies’s challenge to the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 summary affirmances without written opinions in patent appeals, leaving the controversial practice intact.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in a DNA-sequencing patent malpractice case that highlights a structural problem in patent law: inventors can be bound by litigation outcomes through claim preclusion while courts simultaneously hold that no attorney-client duty was owed to them.
The Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal reversed a first-instance denial and granted Abbott a preliminary injunction against Sinocare’s GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitor, finding the first instance had interpreted the patent claims too narrowly.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of New York partially granted both sides’ motions in a 3D scanning patent dispute, narrowing the case for trial while also partially excluding a defense expert’s testimony on technical grounds.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued Final Written Decisions on April 17, 2026 invalidating all claims of two U.S. patents covering TOPCon solar cell technology that Trina Solar had asserted against Canadian Solar subsidiaries in a dispute seeking over $144 million in damages.
The U.S. International Trade Commission declined to review an administrative law judge’s finding that Apple’s redesigned Apple Watch blood oxygen feature does not infringe Masimo’s patents, effectively terminating the enforcement proceeding and closing the long-running import ban saga.
Japan’s IP High Court overturned the JPO’s rejection of a Riken Technos patent for transparent projection screen coatings, holding the patent office failed to explain why a skilled person would have selected the claimed resin from known alternatives.
Judge Peterson carved up MCP IP’s ten-patent assault on the Ravin R500 crossbow: Ravin gets non-infringement summary judgment on six patents, MCP wins infringement and defeats invalidity on the ‘433 and ‘939 patents, and the court teed up show-cause briefing on three more.
Judge Gilstrap largely sided with NPE K.Mizra in a claim construction ruling on three networking patents asserted against Nokia, rejecting Nokia’s attempts to narrow key terms like “preemption” and “Virtual Switch Instance.”
Judge Saylor denied Maquet’s summary-judgment motion seeking to kill Abiomed’s prosecution-laches defense on the pigtail-tip claim of U.S. Patent 10,238,783, finding a genuine fact dispute over whether Maquet reasonably disclosed the pigtail feature during a 15-year prosecution delay.
Magistrate Judge Payne narrowed both sides’ expert testimony in a patent-assertion-entity dispute over whether a Cisco-Intel RPX license reaches EireOg’s ‘777 patent, allowing industry-structure opinions but excluding public-policy commentary and testimony on already-decided license theories.
The E.D. Cal. ordered supplemental briefing on whether Gallo’s sparse “one soil moisture sensor per 650 vines” setup falls within Vineyard Investigations’ plant-level irrigation patents, and invited Gallo to renew its § 101 eligibility challenge in light of post-2021 Federal Circuit authority.
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 Third Circuit affirmed denial of J&J’s preliminary injunction against Samsung’s sublicensing of a Stelara biosimilar to a Cigna subsidiary, holding that loss of market share in the biologics market does not categorically constitute irreparable harm in breach-of-contract cases.
Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court overturned the JPO’s invalidation of a key Broad Institute CRISPR patent, ruling that the institutions could validly claim priority from earlier U.S. filings despite a dispute over ownership of those priority rights.
The Northern District of California granted summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that ‘and’ in a patent claim is unambiguously conjunctive — both the metallic contact plugs and the front metal must exceed aluminum’s thermal conductivity.
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 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).