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 revives one patent claim against YouTube’s Siberia Content ID system while affirming two others invalid for indefiniteness.
Judge Gilstrap finds that Headwater Research LLC — which knew of Verizon’s patent infringement in 2017 but waited six years to file suit in order to maximize its damages window — engaged in conduct so inconsistent with an intent to enforce its rights that equity bars enforcement entirely, wiping out a $175 million jury verdict. The court holds that implied waiver survives the Supreme Court’s SCA Hygiene decision, which abolished laches, because waiver goes to liability rather than damages.
In a Markman claim construction order, the District of New Jersey construed nine disputed terms from two patents covering decorative lighting strings with spaced bulbs, setting the stage for infringement and validity analysis.
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 UPC Mannheim Local Division issued an ex parte anti-anti-suit injunction ordering Geely to withdraw its Chinese interim licence application or face fines up to €50 million, in a landmark ruling reinforcing that the right to enforce a patent includes its procedural enforceability.
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 invalidated all claims in two Trina Solar TOPCon solar cell patents, finding them obvious over prior art including a 2013 Fraunhofer Institute publication, in a pair of IPR proceedings brought by Canadian Solar and Runergy.
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 PTAB issued final written decisions invalidating all claims in two Trina Solar patents covering TOPCon solar cell technology, handing a major win to competitors Runergy and Canadian Solar in a patent battle spanning the ITC, Delaware, and California.
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 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.
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.
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.
A Massachusetts federal court denied Abiomed’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, finding genuine disputes over whether differential and optical pressure sensors are equivalent to the fluid-column sensor claimed in Maquet’s intravascular blood pump patent.
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.
The Federal Circuit held that patents omitting a true co-inventor are invalid when the error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256, because § 256(b) requires actual notice and opportunity to be heard — and a co-inventor who cannot be located cannot receive that notice.
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).
A federal court denied Krisp Technologies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Sanas.AI’s patents on real-time accent conversion using machine learning claim specific technical improvements rather than abstract ideas, distinguishing them from mere digital format conversion.
A federal jury in Seattle returned a $152,093 verdict for Valve and against inventor Leigh Rothschild and his patent-licensing entities — finding violations of the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and a 2016 patent licensing settlement. It is, according to the IP bar, the first jury verdict under a state anti-troll statute.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal and held that an artificial neural network for recommending media files based on emotional characteristics is patentable, abandoning the Aerotel four-step test in favor of the EPO’s broader COMVIK approach — the most significant shift in UK computer-patent law in two decades.
An Eastern District of New York judge denied Bemmo’s motion to dismiss Ridge Wallet’s patent infringement and trade dress claims, holding that claim construction disputes are premature at the pleading stage and that Ridge Wallet adequately alleged secondary meaning and non-functionality of its distinctive ‘Forged Ember’ design.
In a same-day companion ruling to Meril v. Edwards, the UPC Court of Appeal articulated a comprehensive inventive-step framework: identify the objective problem from the perspective of the skilled person, choose a realistic starting point in the prior art, and assess whether the skilled person ‘would’ (not merely ‘could’) have arrived at the claimed solution. The decision also clarifies medical-use claim format, sufficiency, added matter, and burden of proof.
Same-day companion to Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron, the UPC Court of Appeal in Meril v. Edwards held that the ‘same parties’ test under Art. 33(4) UPCA looks to identity of interests; that disclosed embodiments are generally covered by the patent claims unless the specification clearly teaches otherwise; and importantly that an inventive step may be found even where the claimed solution is merely a ‘non-obvious alternative’ to known prior-art solutions.
The UPC Court of Appeal set out a workable test for when a generic pharmaceutical’s pre-launch activity creates an imminent threat of infringement supporting provisional measures: a bare marketing authorisation does not, but completion of national health-technology-assessment, pricing, and reimbursement procedures can — depending on the regulatory and commercial context.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal of a favorable PTAB decision for lack of Article III standing, holding that a patent owner who wins an IPR cannot appeal to compel adjudication of a real-parties-in-interest dispute absent a concrete injury; the Supreme Court denied cert on June 22, 2026.
The Japan Intellectual Property High Court reversed the Tokyo District Court and held that a generic narlfrafen hydrochloride (nalfurafine) anti-itch product infringes Toray’s term-extended pharmaceutical use patent on Remitch, awarding the patentee approximately ¥21.7 billion (~US$140 million) in damages. The decision expansively defines the scope of extended Japanese pharmaceutical patents — covering generics with substantively identical active ingredient, dosage, usage, and indication, not merely formally identical products.
Korea’s Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of indirect patent-infringement claims against a domestic manufacturer that produced 13 individual conjugate substrates in Korea but exported them for final mixing into a 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine abroad, holding that under the territoriality principle of Korean Patent Act § 127(1), “production” must occur within Korean territory and a foreign-completed final assembly does not trigger Korean indirect-infringement liability.
The Federal Circuit held that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel bars only invalidity grounds based on patents or printed publications — not grounds based on physical prior-art products or systems. The ruling resolves a decade-long split among district courts and significantly limits how much challengers are foreclosed from arguing after an IPR.
The UPC Düsseldorf Local Division articulated the substantive framework for second medical-use claim infringement: the alleged infringer must offer or place the medicinal product on the market in a way that leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use, with knowledge or constructive knowledge that it does. Procedurally, the panel rejected “pleading ignorance” as a recognized form of defense, holding that the UPC Rules of Procedure do not acknowledge that pleading style.
The Supreme People’s Court IP Tribunal reversed a first-instance finding of patent infringement in a power-management chip dispute, holding that pulse-signal generation circuit features in the accused chip differed from the patented features in means, function, and effect — and therefore neither identically infringed nor were equivalent. The decision is the SPC’s most prominent 2025 elaboration of the doctrine of equivalents in logic-circuit patents.
The CJEU Grand Chamber held that Article 4(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 entitles a court of a defendant’s domicile member state to hear infringement claims regarding a European patent’s national parts validated in other member states (and even in non-EU states), notwithstanding invalidity defenses raised under Article 24(4). The decision dramatically expands cross-border patent litigation in the EU and is the doctrinal foundation for the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC-state patent rights.