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 Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding that Ingevity Corp. (Ingevity) violated antitrust laws by tying licenses to its fuel‑vapor canister patent to purchases of its unpatented...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
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 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
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
REGENXBIO v. Trustees of UPenn, No. 2024-1408 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2026) - Generally, someone may receive a patent for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. However, for over 75...more
In early 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) agreed to hear a case at the heart of pharmaceutical intellectual property that could have significant implications for the manufacturers of both patented and generic drugs....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 20, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing and remanding a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding the...more
Damages have become one of the most closely watched—and fiercely litigated—issues in modern patent litigation. In recent decisions, the Federal Circuit has sharpened its focus on district courts’ gatekeeping obligations for...more
On February 20, 2026, in Case No. 24-1408, the CAFC reversed and remanded the district court’s summary judgment decision (Case No. 1:20-cv-01226 (D. Del.)) finding the claims of REGENXBIO’s U.S. Patent No. 10,526,617 (“the...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
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
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
Government contractors who infringe third party patents while performing work “for the Government” and “with the authorization or consent of the Government” are immune from liability for the infringement. The patent owner can...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding that Ingevity engaged in unlawful tying under the Sherman Act by conditioning licenses to its patent on customers’ purchase of its unpatented...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
Design patents cover the ornamental features of a product. Whether a design patent is infringed comes down to a visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product. Would an ordinary consumer confuse the two...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
A consequence of the Supreme Court’s assault on subject matter eligibility a dozen years or so ago was that the patent defense bar presented the judiciary with ever more stringent standards and extreme if not fanciful...more