It Only Took 13 Years: The Federal Circuit's First Derivation Proceeding Decision — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Podcast: IP(DC): Inside Patent Reform Efforts, Anticipated Federal Circuit Appeals, and Patent Cases of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
The Federal Circuit recently emphasized that patentees must distinguish between functional and ornamental features claimed in design patents or otherwise risk facing a narrowed construction of the patents’ claims....more
In Range Of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., Appeal No. 23-2427, the Federal Circuit held that functional aspects of a design must be separated out when analyzing whether an ordinary observer would find two...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a damages verdict amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The Court found that the patentee’s damages expert correctly apportioned value to the patented feature and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of a means-plus-function claim element, emphasizing that a patentee must compare the accused product...more
On February 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment of non infringement in favor of defendants in Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony Corp., No....more
On February 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., holding that Armaid’s massage device did not infringe Range of Motion’s (RoM)...more
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), as applied during USPTO examination, is often described as a “broad” claim construction standard. That description is accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete in a way that...more
RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS, LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC. - Before Moore, Cunningham, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Functional aspects of a design must be separated out when...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that the Board failed to consider common textual modifier language when applying the plain meaning...more
In a significant decision providing guidance on the admissibility of expert testimony on patent damages, the Federal Circuit has affirmed both the validity and the substantial-damages verdict for infringement of Willis...more
NETFLIX, INC. V. DIVX, LLC - Before Moore, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Common principles of English grammar may be used to identify the presumptively correct interpretation of a disputed...more
In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that Hulu’s video streaming technology did not practice the claimed method because it did not perform the...more
In Barry v. Depuy Synthes Co., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s exclusion of the patentee’s expert testimony and its grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement....more
Stipulations are an important tool for simplifying patent cases. They can be used to narrow disputed issues, streamline discovery, and focus trial on what really matters. But stipulations can also take on a life of their own...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
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
This case addresses whether the district court correctly applied prosecution disclaimer to (i) import a negative limitation into a child patent claim based on prosecution of a related parent patent with materially different...more
Addressing the issue of functional versus ornamental features, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that no reasonable juror could find...more
In a second appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement based on an implicit ordering of steps in a method claim after disagreeing with the lower...more
The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, finding that no reasonable jury could find the Armaid2 design to be substantially similar to the design claimed in the D’155 patent. RoM appealed using two main...more
On January 20, 2026, the Federal Circuit (per Judge Stark and joined by Judge Taranto, with Judge Prost dissenting) reversed a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, excluding two experts who testified for...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Range of Motion Products v. Armaid is another reminder that, if care is not taken, design patent scope can be narrowed significantly in the U.S. through...more
The Federal Circuit’s only precedential decision this week was a rare case involving design patents. The Federal Circuit considered questions concerning infringement and claim construction in view of considerations of...more