The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful patent infringement and the jury’s $23 million damages award in a droplet microfluidics case, but reversed claim construction on two of three patents and partially vacated the injunction as to product lines where 10X had not yet developed non-infringing alternatives.
The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus directing transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California — the first such order against Judge Albright’s court — holding that the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing transfer factors.
The Federal Circuit held that a state university’s sovereign immunity barred its involuntary joinder as a co-plaintiff, but permitted an exclusive patent licensee to proceed with infringement litigation without the patent owner, because the licensee had identical interests and no risk of multiple suits.
The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may evaluate patent eligibility under § 101 when a patent owner proposes substitute claims during an inter partes review, expanding the PTAB’s authority beyond anticipation and obviousness.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidation of EMC’s data storage system patents on obviousness grounds — holding that the PTAB properly weighed secondary considerations of non-obviousness including commercial success and industry praise, but found them insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness established by the prior art.
The Federal Circuit upheld the patent eligibility of network traffic monitoring patents under § 101, finding they recite a concrete technical solution to the problem of tracking multi-flow network conversations, but reversed pre-suit damages because the patent owner failed to comply with the patent marking requirement.
The Federal Circuit held that Roche’s patents on etanercept (Enbrel) were not subject to obviousness-type double patenting by Immunex, because Roche’s license to Immunex was not an effective assignment — Roche retained substantial patent rights that prevented common ownership.
The Supreme Court held that combining a generic word with “.com” does not automatically make the resulting term generic; whether a term is generic depends on consumer perception, and “Booking.com” is not generic for hotel reservation services.
The Federal Circuit held that direct competitors have Article III standing to appeal an IPR final written decision even without a specific threat of patent infringement litigation, so long as their commercial activities risk infringement and the patent owner has refused to grant a covenant not to sue.
The Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine barred PersonalWeb from re-suing Amazon’s customers for infringement of the same patents, after PersonalWeb had previously settled a lawsuit against Amazon itself without expressly reserving its rights to sue downstream customers.
The Federal Circuit addressed whether a standard-essential patent holder’s injunction request against a licensee who rejected a FRAND license offer was properly denied — examining the standards for determining whether a license offer was FRAND-compliant and whether refusal to accept a FRAND offer could support injunctive relief.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal and held that patent claims covering a technique for reducing transmission delays in wireless communication systems were directed to a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality rather than an abstract idea.
The Supreme Court held 5–4 that Georgia’s officially adopted annotated code — including annotations prepared under legislative supervision — is not copyrightable under the government edicts doctrine, because works created by government officials exercising legislative or judicial authority belong to the public.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance is not binding on the courts, and that the proper legal standard for patent eligibility remains the Alice/Mayo framework as interpreted by federal court precedent.
The Supreme Court held unanimously that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case may recover the defendant’s profits under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) without proving that the infringement was willful.
The Federal Circuit held that assignor estoppel bars a patent assignor from challenging claim validity in district court, but does not prevent the same assignor from filing inter partes review petitions at the PTAB — a critical distinction with major implications for post-grant strategy.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act covers only the active ingredient actually approved by the FDA—and its salts and esters—but does not extend to a metabolite of that ingredient, even if the metabolite is what is pharmacologically active in the body.
The Supreme Court held 7-2 that § 314(d)’s bar on judicial review of IPR institution decisions extends to determinations about the § 315(b) one-year time bar — meaning courts cannot review whether the PTAB incorrectly concluded that a petition was timely filed within the statutory one-year period after service of a complaint alleging infringement.
The Federal Circuit held that color marks on product packaging can be inherently distinctive and thus registrable as trademarks without proof of acquired distinctiveness, clarifying that multicolor product packaging marks are treated differently from product design marks.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court preliminary injunction that barred a patent holder from alleging infringement, holding that a finding of bad faith—including objective baselessness—is a necessary predicate before such an injunction may issue.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress lacked constitutional authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity for copyright infringement under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, leaving rights holders without a federal damages remedy when states infringe their copyrights.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling and held that method-of-preparation claims for enriching cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood were patent eligible under § 101, because the claims went beyond merely observing a natural phenomenon and recited concrete preparation steps.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s exclusion order against Comcast set-top boxes, holding that the ITC’s authority under Section 337 extends to articles that infringe after importation when the importer induces customer infringement domestically.
The Federal Circuit applied the Kessler doctrine — a nineteenth-century rule of preclusion in patent law — to bar PersonalWeb from relitigating patent infringement claims against Amazon Web Services customers after PersonalWeb had previously lost in a suit against Amazon directly, holding that customers of an adjudicated non-infringer are protected from subsequent patent suits on the same technology.
The Federal Circuit granted Google’s writ of mandamus and held that cache servers leased inside third-party ISP facilities do not create a “regular and established place of business” for patent venue purposes unless an employee or agent of the defendant is conducting business there.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot cancel patent claims as indefinite in inter partes review proceedings, since the IPR statute limits the Board to invalidity grounds based on prior art under Sections 102 and 103.
The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board exceeded its authority by instituting inter partes review on an obviousness ground that was not raised in the petition, violating the statutory requirement that the Board limit its review to grounds asserted by the petitioner.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling, holding that a patentee cannot presume a nexus between commercial success and a patent when the successful product contains significant features not covered by the patent claims.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the American Rule prevents the USPTO from recovering its attorney’s fees from unsuccessful applicants in § 145 civil actions, even though the statute requires applicants to pay “all expenses” of the proceeding.
The Federal Circuit vacated a bench-determined FRAND royalty award, holding that a standard-essential patent holder is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on “release payments” for an implementer’s past unlicensed use of the patented technology.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Idenix’s broad nucleoside compound patent for lack of enablement and written description, ruling that a claim covering a vast genus of chemical compounds is invalid when the specification does not teach how to make most of them.
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims directed to manufacturing driveshaft liners that “attenuate” vibrations were invalid under § 101 because they were simply an instruction to apply Hooke’s law — a natural law — without specifying how to do so, triggering a sharp dissent warning of § 101 overreach.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $145 million patent damages award against Apple, holding that Wi-LAN’s expert improperly used entire smartphone sales as the royalty base for cellular standard-essential patents — applying the entire market value rule without adequate apportionment to the patented features — and requiring retrial on damages.
The Federal Circuit invalidated garage door opener patents covering a wireless sensor system for communicating door state, holding the claims were directed to the abstract idea of wirelessly communicating status information — an idea that cannot be its own inventive concept.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patents covering the Contrave weight loss drug were obvious, rejecting arguments that unexpected synergistic effects between bupropion and naltrexone saved the claims from invalidity.
The Federal Circuit clarified the scope of IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2), holding that IPR estoppel applies only to grounds based on patents or printed publications — the types of prior art available in IPR — and does not bar district court invalidity challenges based on prior art that could not have been raised in IPR, such as prior public use or on-sale evidence.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court and invalidated Solutran’s check-processing patent under § 101, holding that the presence of physical steps involving paper checks does not transform an abstract business method into patent-eligible subject matter.
The Federal Circuit held that applying inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to patents issued before the America Invents Act does not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, rejecting a major constitutional challenge to the PTAB system.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s doctrine of equivalents infringement claim, holding that arguments made during patent prosecution create estoppel bars even when those arguments were not strictly necessary to secure allowance of the claims.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Enzo’s nucleotide labeling patents for lack of enablement, holding that claims covering tens of thousands of possible labeled polynucleotide embodiments were not enabled when the specification disclosed only a few working examples.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of patent claims as ineligible under § 101, applying Berkheimer to hold that well-pleaded factual allegations about how the claimed invention was an unconventional advance must be accepted as true at the 12(b)(6) stage — limiting early § 101 dispositive motions where patents allege specific technical improvements.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that are immoral or scandalous constitutes an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on speech under the First Amendment.
The Federal Circuit addressed the PTAB’s discretionary authority under § 314(a) to deny IPR petitions based on factors including the stage of parallel district court litigation and the efficiency of institution — affirming the PTAB’s broad discretion in institution decisions and its authority to consider the NHK-Fintiv framework for balancing IPR efficiency against parallel litigation.
The Federal Circuit held that state sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review proceedings, following the logic of its earlier St. Regis Mohawk Tribe ruling and closing the gap between tribal and state immunity claims at the PTAB.
The Supreme Court held that the federal government is not a ‘person’ eligible to petition for inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review under the America Invents Act.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patent claims directed to displaying profit-and-loss data on a trading screen were ineligible under § 101 because merely presenting new financial information on a generic display does not solve a technical problem.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that Endo’s oxymorphone dosing patent was ineligible, holding that claims directed to a specific method of treating specific patients with specific dosages are not merely abstract natural laws.
The Federal Circuit held that patents covering network-controlled electric vehicle charging stations are directed to the abstract idea of network communication for device interaction, invalidating all four asserted patents under § 101.
The Federal Circuit upheld SRI’s network intrusion detection patents against a § 101 challenge, holding that claims requiring computers to perform surveillance and analysis that the human mind is incapable of doing are not directed to abstract ideas.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that patents on using beta-alanine as a dietary supplement were invalid under § 101, holding that method of treatment claims covering use of a natural compound in non-naturally-occurring quantities to alter physiology are patent eligible.