The Federal Circuit held that when a patentee satisfies all four Panduit factors for lost profits — including proving demand driven by the patented feature and no acceptable non-infringing substitutes — no further separate apportionment of those profits is required, because the Panduit analysis inherently ties the damages to the patented features’ value.

The Federal Circuit reversed a $93 million foreign lost-profits award for ION’s domestic infringement under Section 271(f), holding that the presumption against extraterritoriality barred recovery for overseas contracts WesternGeco would have won absent the infringement — a ruling the Supreme Court reversed in 2018.

On remand from the Supreme Court’s Halo Electronics decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding under the new subjective standard but vacated the enhanced damages award, instructing the district court to exercise its discretion anew — illustrating how post-Halo willfulness analysis shifts enhanced damages decisions back to district court discretion.

An en banc Federal Circuit held that a pharmaceutical company’s contract with a manufacturer to produce drug batches — where title to the product remained with the inventor — did not constitute a ‘commercial sale’ triggering the on-sale bar under Section 102(b), clarifying the boundaries between legitimate pre-commercial manufacturing and invalidating sales activity.

The Federal Circuit denied mandamus to TC Heartland, a company challenging patent venue in the District of Delaware, deferring to its own longstanding rule that domestic corporations can be sued for patent infringement wherever they are subject to personal jurisdiction — a position the Supreme Court unanimously reversed in 2017.

An en banc Federal Circuit held that a patent owner’s restricted domestic sales don’t exhaust patent rights when clearly communicated restrictions are violated, and that foreign sales never exhaust U.S. patent rights — both holdings later reversed by the Supreme Court in a landmark 2017 patent exhaustion ruling.

The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict of non-infringement for Apple in a wireless patent case, holding that even mathematically equivalent signal-processing operations implemented through structurally different hardware pipelines are not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalents — the different structures matter even if the mathematical outputs are the same.

The Federal Circuit held that there is no universal rule requiring patent damages models to begin with the smallest saleable patent-practicing unit — but remanded CSIRO’s Wi-Fi patent damages award because the district court failed to account for the patent’s standard-essential status when setting the royalty rate, requiring a FRAND-adjusted award.

The Federal Circuit unanimously rejected a patent holder’s constitutional challenge to inter partes review, holding that IPR proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment because patents are public rights that may be adjudicated by an administrative agency without access to a federal court or jury — a foundational ruling for the PTAB system.

In a 6-5 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit held that laches remains a valid defense that can bar recovery of pre-suit patent damages — splitting from the Supreme Court’s copyright ruling in Petrella v. MGM and ruling that Congress had separately codified laches as a patent defense in 35 U.S.C. § 282.

On remand from the Supreme Court, an en banc Federal Circuit expanded direct infringement liability beyond the single-actor rule, holding that an entity can be liable for another’s performance of method steps when it conditions participation or a benefit on that performance and establishes the manner or timing of the performance.

An en banc Federal Circuit overruled its prior ‘strong presumption’ that claim terms without the word ‘means’ are not means-plus-function limitations, holding that terms like ‘module’ that claim a function without reciting sufficient structure are subject to Section 112’s means-plus-function rules — and typically invalidated for indefiniteness when the specification lacks corresponding structure.

The Federal Circuit affirmed infringement findings in a spinal implant patent case but remanded on damages, holding that lost profits are limited to products the patentee itself sells and that convoyed sales damages require a functional relationship between the patented and unpatented products — significantly narrowing the damages available to Warsaw Orthopedic.

In the first Federal Circuit decision reviewing an inter partes review (IPR) final written decision, the court affirmed the PTAB’s use of the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ claim construction standard in IPR proceedings — a ruling that set the rules for thousands of subsequent patent challenges.

The Federal Circuit held that exporting a single ‘main’ or ‘essential’ component of a patented multi-component product from the U.S. can constitute infringement under Section 271(f)(1) — a ruling the Supreme Court unanimously reversed in 2017, holding that a single component is categorically insufficient.

The Federal Circuit provided the most comprehensive guidance yet on how to calculate reasonable royalties for standard-essential patents (SEPs) subject to FRAND commitments, holding that damages must reflect incremental value of the invention rather than value derived from standardization, and that hold-up and royalty-stacking concerns require evidentiary support.

The Federal Circuit affirmed its two-part Seagate test for enhanced patent damages, refusing to award treble damages even where a jury found willful infringement — a holding the Supreme Court would reverse in 2016 by eliminating the objective recklessness requirement and restoring broader district court discretion.

The Federal Circuit vacated a $368 million patent verdict against Cisco and Apple in VirnetX’s network security patent case, rejecting the Nash Bargaining Solution as a royalty methodology and requiring strict apportionment to the patented features even when the smallest salable unit is the accused product itself.

The Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s newly articulated Nautilus indefiniteness standard to Interval Licensing’s ‘attention manager’ patents, affirming that numerous claims were indefinite while vacating non-infringement findings on other claims based on errors in the district court’s claim construction — one of the first Federal Circuit applications of the Nautilus ‘reasonable certainty’ test.