Utility Patent

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 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.

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 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 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.