The Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act’s authorization of “full costs” under § 505 covers only the six categories of costs specified in the general federal costs statute — not additional litigation expenses like expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consultants.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that copyright registration “occurs” when the Copyright Office registers a claim — not when the applicant files — meaning copyright holders must wait for the Office to act before they can sue for infringement.
The Federal Circuit invalidated a diagnostic patent for detecting autoantibodies linked to myasthenia gravis, then denied en banc rehearing in a rare decision accompanied by eight separate opinions, exposing the court’s deep division over § 101 and diagnostic patents.
The Federal Circuit held that the USPTO cannot reduce patent term adjustment by a period during which the applicant could not have taken any action to advance prosecution, limiting PTA deductions to periods of actual applicant delay.
The Supreme Court held that the AIA preserved pre-AIA law on the ‘on sale’ bar: a confidential commercial sale of an invention more than one year before the patent application triggers the bar, even if the invention’s details remain secret.
The Federal Circuit held that Trading Technologies’ patents on a graphical user interface for electronic futures trading were patent-ineligible abstract ideas under Alice — finding that displaying market data and allowing traders to place orders by clicking on a price ladder represented an abstract business method implemented on a computer rather than a patent-eligible technological improvement.
The Federal Circuit held that the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting cannot be used to cut short a patent term extension lawfully granted by statute, affirming Novartis’s extended patent protection for its multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal and held that a patent claiming a method of preventing computers from running unlicensed software by using the BIOS to store a license verification key is not an abstract idea—it claims a concrete improvement to computer security functionality.
The Federal Circuit held that a trademark registration creates a presumption of secondary meaning only as of the date of registration — not retroactively — requiring Converse to independently prove its Chuck Taylor trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before each infringer’s first infringing use.
The Federal Circuit reversed invalidation of tabbed-spreadsheet navigation patents, holding that claims covering a specific, novel user interface for navigating large spreadsheets are not directed to an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment finding written description inadequacy for Nevro’s spinal cord stimulation patents, holding that the specification’s disclosure of the claimed frequency ranges combined with paresthesia-free stimulation raised genuine issues of material fact about whether a skilled artisan would have recognized the inventor’s possession of the full claimed range.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $140 million patent damages award, holding that the entire market value rule cannot be used to calculate damages when accused products have valuable features beyond the patented invention.
The Federal Circuit held that a company that had built a manufacturing facility and planned commercial activity within the scope of a challenged patent had Article III standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision, even without being accused of infringement.
Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit held that the IPR one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered when a defendant is served with a patent infringement complaint, even if that complaint is later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
The Federal Circuit dismissed an IPR petitioner’s appeal for lack of Article III standing, holding that a party must show concrete plans for activity creating a substantial risk of infringement — not just status as a competitor — to have standing to challenge an adverse PTAB decision in court.
The Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that had rejected a trade show catalog as prior art, holding that materials publicly distributed at industry events can qualify as “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even if they were not formally indexed or archived.
The Federal Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be used to shield patents from inter partes review, rejecting a controversial licensing arrangement between Allergan and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe designed to avoid IPR challenges to Restasis patents.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent covering an “attention manager” that displays content in unused screen space is ineligible under § 101, because it claims a desired outcome — non-interfering display of two information sets — without specifying any technical means of achieving it.
The Supreme Court held that a patent holder can recover lost foreign profits as damages when a domestic act of infringement under § 271(f) caused those foreign profits to be lost.
The Federal Circuit vacated the TTAB’s decision allowing Coca-Cola to register its ZERO trademarks without a disclaimer, holding the Board applied the wrong genericness standard and failed to properly assess the degree of descriptiveness when evaluating acquired distinctiveness.
The Federal Circuit addressed claim differentiation and claim construction for Teleflex’s coronary sinus lead placement patent — holding that where a dependent claim adds a specific limitation, the corresponding independent claim must be broader, and applying this principle to construe lead placement method claims in a dispute between cardiac device makers.
The Federal Circuit held that in states with multiple judicial districts, a domestic corporation “resides” for patent venue purposes only in the single district where its principal place of business or registered office is located, tightening venue rules after TC Heartland.
The Federal Circuit held that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), does not apply to alien (foreign) corporate defendants, who remain subject to suit for patent infringement in any U.S. district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that when the USPTO institutes an inter partes review, it must adjudicate every claim challenged in the petition — rejecting the PTO’s practice of instituting IPR on only some of the challenged claims and leaving other claims unreviewable.
The Supreme Court held 7-2 that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment — because patents are public franchises granted by the government, which may reclaim or modify them through an executive agency proceeding without a jury trial, upholding the America Invents Act’s most powerful patent challenge mechanism.
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims covering computerized voting, verification, and vote tabulation are directed to the abstract idea of voting — a fundamental human activity for centuries — and thus ineligible under § 101.
The Federal Circuit held that method-of-treatment claims directed to a specific dosing regimen for schizophrenia based on a patient’s genetic profile are patent eligible under §101, distinguishing the Supreme Court’s Mayo decision and reinforcing the eligibility of personalized medicine patents.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling against a wireless networking patent, holding that “common sense” cannot substitute for real evidentiary support when a prior art reference is missing a claimed limitation, particularly for complex technology.
The Federal Circuit vacated a claim preclusion ruling against SimpleAir, holding that filing a terminal disclaimer in a continuation patent does not create a presumption that the continuation’s claims are patentably indistinct from the parent, and courts must compare actual claim scope before finding preclusion.
The Federal Circuit held that on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all well-pleaded facts as true before ruling on patent eligibility under § 101, reversing summary dismissal of software form-processing patents.
The Federal Circuit held that the Alice/Mayo Step 2B inquiry — whether a claim element or combination of elements represents an ‘inventive concept’ that was well-understood, routine, and conventional — contains underlying factual questions that may not always be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment, limiting the scope of § 101 dispositive motions.
The Federal Circuit upheld patent claims covering an improved mobile device application summary interface, holding that specific graphical user interface improvements solving a concrete usability problem are not abstract ideas under § 101.
The Federal Circuit confirmed that patent damages can be apportioned through the royalty rate rather than the royalty base, but vacated a $48 million award because the patent owner’s damages expert failed to adequately explain how the Georgia-Pacific factors supported the proposed royalty rate.
The Federal Circuit held that identifying the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit” is not sufficient when that unit still contains non-patented features, and further apportionment is required to isolate the value of the patented technology in complex software products.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled Achates and held that §315(b) time-bar determinations by the PTAB are subject to judicial review, rejecting the argument that all IPR institution decisions are unreviewable.
The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB’s cancellation of Credit Acceptance’s patent on financing automobile purchases through a dealer-administered program, holding the claims directed to the abstract idea of processing financing transactions — a business practice not rendered patent-eligible by implementation on a computer.
The Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Smart Systems’ open-loop transit payment patents under Section 101, holding that collecting financial data using generic components to facilitate transit access is an abstract idea — with a notable dissent arguing that the claims addressed a real, Internet-era technical problem.
An en banc Federal Circuit held that in inter partes review proceedings, the petitioner — not the patent owner — bears the burden of proving that proposed amended claims are unpatentable, overturning years of PTAB practice that had effectively blocked most patent owner amendment efforts.
The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of non-infringement in a divided infringement case, holding that the ‘direction and control’ standard from Akamai v. Limelight could be satisfied where one party conditions participation in an activity on performance of a method step by another party — applying the standard to luggage locks and TSA inspection agreements.
The Federal Circuit granted mandamus to Cray and set forth a three-part test for what constitutes a ‘regular and established place of business’ under the patent venue statute — rejecting the Eastern District of Texas’s expansive four-factor test and clarifying that employees’ homes and remote workers in a district do not, by themselves, establish venue.
The Federal Circuit held that the federal government qualifies as a ‘person’ under the America Invents Act and may petition for covered business method (CBM) review at the PTAB — a ruling the Supreme Court reversed in 2019, holding that the government is not a ‘person’ for AIA post-grant proceedings.
Reversing a district court’s Section 101 dismissal, the Federal Circuit held that Visual Memory’s patent on a programmable memory system with processor-specific operational characteristics was directed to an improved computer memory technology — not an abstract idea — because it described a specific technical advance in how memory systems operate.
The Federal Circuit held that IPR estoppel under § 315(e)(2) does not extend to prior art grounds based on patents or printed publications that the petitioner could not have raised in IPR — specifically that prior art systems and physical products (which cannot be raised in IPR) are not subject to the IPR estoppel bar in subsequent district court litigation.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering ‘disparaging’ trademarks violates the First Amendment — invalidating the PTO’s refusal to register THE SLANTS for an Asian-American band and establishing that trademark registration is a government benefit program subject to First Amendment viewpoint neutrality requirements.
The Supreme Court held 7-1 that authorized patent sales both domestically and abroad exhaust all U.S. patent rights in the sold item — eliminating Lexmark’s attempt to use conditional patent licenses to control post-sale use and the Federal Circuit’s rule allowing foreign sales to preserve domestic patent rights.
The Supreme Court held that the patent venue statute, § 1400(b), is the sole provision governing where patent suits may be filed, and that a corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for patent venue purposes.
The Federal Circuit held that a secret commercial sale — where the existence of the sale agreement was publicly disclosed but the details of the invention were kept confidential — triggers the on-sale bar under the AIA, finding that the America Invents Act did not change the rule that confidential sales can invalidate patents when the sale’s existence is public.
The Supreme Court held 6–2 that surface designs on cheerleading uniforms are copyrightable, establishing a new two-part separability test: a design element is protectable if it can be perceived as a work of art separate from the useful article, and would qualify for copyright protection if imagined independently.
The Supreme Court held 7-1 that laches cannot be used as a defense to patent infringement that occurred within the six-year statute of limitations — extending Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (copyright) to patent law and eliminating a long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that had allowed laches to bar infringement suits brought years after the patent holder learned of the infringement.
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.