Judge Edward Chen of the N.D. Cal. granted Apple summary judgment, holding that Neonode’s foundational swipe gesture patent (U.S. 8,095,879) is invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Case Overview Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co., No. 1:25-cv-00026 (M.D.N.C. June 5,
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decisions finding all challenged claims of three patents related to lost-computer recovery screens unpatentable as obvious, rejecting challenges to IPR institution and claim construction.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Nexus Pharmaceuticals’ generic minocycline product infringes Melinta’s patent covering a magnesium-containing antibiotic formulation that reduces injection-site hemolysis.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a Section 337 investigation (337-TA-1504) into allegations that Amazon’s Echo speakers, Echo Show displays, and Fire TV devices infringe five AI voice technology patents owned by Cerence Operating Company.
NEC Corporation v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:24-CV-00720-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2026) (Gilstrap, J.) Download
A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ended Amarin’s induced infringement suit against Hikma’s skinny-label generic of Vascepa, holding that anodyne marketing references to the branded drug do not plausibly allege that a generic maker actively encouraged infringing uses.
The Federal Circuit vacated an $11.5 million patent infringement verdict against ecobee, holding that a single-question verdict form covering four patents was improper and that the jury was not properly instructed on the abstract idea under Alice step two.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that had upheld claims of a spinal implant patent, finding the Board misconstrued the term ‘complementary with one another’ and that the claims are obvious under the correct construction.
The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that the Unified Patent Court can accept jurisdiction over patent infringement in non-member states like the UK, but overturned a Mannheim injunction on substantive grounds — establishing a three-category framework for managing long-arm claims.
A Northern District of California court denied Google’s motion to dismiss a direct infringement claim over containerization technology patents, finding that whether Google Kubernetes Engine and Cloud Run satisfy the patent’s filtering requirement must await claim construction.
A Texas federal court construed ten disputed terms across five cybersecurity patents asserted by Arizona State University’s commercialization arm against CrowdStrike, largely adopting plain-and-ordinary-meaning constructions and rejecting CrowdStrike’s bids to narrow the claims.
The District of Delaware denied Align Technology’s bid to invalidate two intra-oral dental scanning patents under Section 101, finding the claims directed to specific technological improvements rather than abstract ideas, while dismissing willful and indirect infringement claims against both Align and Medit for failure to adequately plead pre-suit knowledge.
The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision upholding an e-learning patent, finding the Board improperly dismissed expert testimony on obviousness as ‘conclusory’ when it addressed a simple design choice of reordering two steps.
A Massachusetts federal jury found that Abiomed’s Impella heart pump devices do not infringe Maquet Cardiovascular’s intravascular blood pump patents, ending a long-running patent dispute between the Johnson & Johnson and Getinge subsidiaries.
A federal judge in San Diego granted Intuit summary judgment of noninfringement, finding that TurboTax’s co-browsing feature does not infringe Samesurf’s U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448 covering synchronized web browsing technology.
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 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.
An Eastern District of Texas jury awarded SK nexilis $3.3 million after finding that Solus Advanced Materials and its Volta Energy subsidiaries willfully infringed five patents covering electrolytic copper foil manufacturing methods used in electric vehicle batteries.
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.
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Delaware district court’s dismissal for lack of standing, holding that patent owners who retain the right to sue for infringement, a sublicensing veto, and royalty interests maintain Article III standing even after granting a broad exclusive license.
In a closely watched case, Judge Gilstrap denied a permanent injunction against Samsung despite a $445.5 million willful infringement verdict, finding that the non-practicing patent owner failed to show the balance of hardships favored relief — even though the court accepted its irreparable harm argument, supported by an unusual joint DOJ-USPTO Statement of Interest.
In a patent litigation over cancer diagnostics, a federal court adopted sanctions totaling nearly $3 million against Quinn Emanuel and five named attorneys, plus a $100,000 punitive sanction and mandatory ethics training, for deliberately misleading the court about an expert’s access to embargoed clinical trial data.
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 Delhi High Court Division Bench reversed a single judge’s infringement and damages decree against DVD importers, holding that Philips failed to prove its DVD decoding patent was essential to the standard and that the defendants’ imports from licensed manufacturers triggered patent exhaustion under Section 107A(b) of the Indian Patents Act.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in CAO Lighting’s challenge arguing that the Federal Circuit’s one-line Rule 36 affirmances of PTAB decisions violate the statutory mandate for judicial ‘opinions’ under Loper Bright principles.
A Delaware federal judge upheld two patents covering UCB’s Nayzilam seizure medication after a bench trial, finding that Cipla failed to prove the patents invalid as anticipated or obvious—preserving UCB’s market exclusivity just as the drug’s orphan drug protection expired.
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.
A Delaware federal judge overturned the jury’s willfulness finding in Express Mobile’s $170 million patent verdict against GoDaddy over web-design technology, preventing potential treble damages while leaving the base verdict intact.
USPTO Director Squires issued a precedential decision denying IPR institution, articulating six principles limiting AIA proceedings and finding that the petition improperly sought to relitigate issues resolved at a completed jury trial.
A federal judge in San Francisco granted GoPro judgment as a matter of law that the sole remaining valid patent claim covering its action camera live-preview technology was invalid, overturning an $8.2 million jury damages award in a case that has been litigated for over a decade.
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 UK Court of Appeal permanently stayed FRAND proceedings brought by Acer and Asus against Nokia, holding that Nokia’s offer to resolve standard-essential patent licensing disputes through arbitration constituted compliance with its FRAND obligations.
The USPTO Director vacated institution of three IPRs filed by Ford, finding that Ford’s use of plain-and-ordinary meaning at PTAB while arguing the same claim terms were indefinite in parallel district court litigation constituted an impermissible inconsistency under the Revvo standard.
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 Unified Patent Court’s Düsseldorf Local Division denied Align Technology’s application for provisional measures against Chinese competitor Angelalign, ruling that promotional materials alone cannot establish patent infringement without independent technical analysis.
USPTO Director Squires terminated three AMD inter partes review proceedings against XtreamEdge’s FPGA and cloud computing patents after finding AMD violated its Sotera stipulations by pursuing overlapping invalidity arguments in parallel district court litigation.
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 ITC’s finding that Tineco’s redesigned wet-dry vacuum cleaners do not infringe BISSELL’s patents, while also establishing that ITC experts may rely on source code produced in discovery but never formally admitted as a hearing exhibit under FRE 703.
In a historic first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred four questions to the CJEU on whether UPC local divisions can assert long-arm jurisdiction over patent infringement occurring in non-UPC contracting states.
The U.S. International Trade Commission issues exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against Innoscience for infringing Infineon’s gallium nitride power semiconductor patent, blocking imports of the Chinese chipmaker’s GaN products into the United States.
A federal judge dismissed MITII’s patent infringement claims against OpenAI’s Sora text-to-video platform with prejudice, finding that four patents originally developed for autism-therapy technology do not cover OpenAI’s AI-powered video generation system.
In a case marking OpenAI’s first significant patent lawsuit in Europe, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Paris Local Division and held that the UPC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement in non-UPC contracting states like the UK, Switzerland, and Spain.