Addressing subject matter eligibility in the life sciences context, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling that certain claims directed to genetically engineered...more
On Feb. 20, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a thoughtful analysis of biotechnology subject-matter eligibility in REGENXBIO, Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., No....more
On February 20, 2026, in REGENXBIO Inc. et al. v. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., et al., No. 2024-1408, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision which held that claims covering a cultured host cell containing a...more
GOTV STREAMING, LLC V. NETFLIX, INC. - Before Prost, Clevenger, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A winning claim construction isn’t always enough to overcome §...more
US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v GOOGLE LLC - Before Moore, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Result-oriented claims were found ineligible under 35 U.S.C...more
In US Pat. No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement suit, holding that the claims directed to asynchronous web conferencing were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s rejection of Netflix’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, finding that claims directed to tailoring content specifications for wireless devices were patent...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - U.S. PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2024‑1520, 01/22/2026) (Moore, Hughes, Stoll) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of U.S....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement suit, holding that the asserted web conferencing claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked any inventive...more
On January 22, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal of a patent infringement action brought by US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC against Google LLC, holding that the...more
Our Patent Case Summaries provide a weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial...more
In our Case of the Week, a divided Federal Circuit panel reviewed an E.D. Pa. court’s exclusion of two experts’ testimony on infringement and damages issues in a case involving handheld surgical tools for treating spinal...more
Our Texas Round-Up for December 2025 covers decisions from the Eastern District addressing subject matter eligibility under Section 101 and the timeliness of expert opinions on non-infringing alternatives....more
Following a dismissal on the pleadings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after concluding that the asserted patent was...more
On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah that found certain claims of a selectorized dumbbell...more
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 2024-1177 (Fed. Cir. (D. Utah) Aug. 11, 2025). Opinion by Stoll, joined by Taranto and Scarsi (sitting by designation). PowerBlock sued iFit for infringement of a patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice...more
POWERBLOCK HOLDING, INC. v. IFIT, INC. - Before Taranto, Stoll, and District Judge Scarsi. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Under step one of the Alice test, claims should be considered...more
In a significant decision for patent law and the fitness equipment industry, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a partial dismissal of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s patent infringement claims brought against iFit, Inc. in...more
On July 21, 2025, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL’s (together, “Teads”) Motion to Dismiss Yieldmo, Inc.’s (“Yieldmo”) Amended Complaint alleging that Teads...more
RECENTIVE ANALYTICS, INC. v. FOX CORP. - Before Dyk, Prost, and Goldberg. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit found that claims applying established methods of...more
United Services Automobile Association v. PNC BANK N.A., - Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A claim that merely recites a system for conducting...more
Recently, the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement and damages judgments against Apple in a patent case that involves standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technology brought in the...more
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2023-2267 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) June 9, 2025). Opinion by Lourie, joined by Dyk and Reyna....more
Aviation Capital Partners v. SH Advisors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ineligibility of claims directed to determining the taxability status of aircraft based on flight data. The panel upheld...more