CAFC News Brief

This nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion details the affirmation of a district court's summary judgment in favor of Seismic Bracing Co., LLC and Andrew Hinchman against SME Steel Contractors, Inc. and Core-Brace, LLC. The case involved multiple claims brought by SME Steel, including patent infringement related to buckling-restrained braces (BRBs), false advertising and false association under the Lanham Act, and copyright infringement concerning technical drawings. The appeals court upheld the lower court's finding that Seismic Bracing's BRBs did not infringe the patent due to the absence of a required "air gap," and that SME Steel failed to establish causal connection for injury in its Lanham Act claims or nexus for profits in its copyright claim, ultimately affirming the summary judgment on all challenged aspects. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/sme-steel-contractors-inc-v-seismic-bracing-company-llc-decided-july-23-2025

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, owned by Colibri, which describes a method for implanting artificial heart valves with a "do-over" or recapture mechanism. Colibri accused Medtronic of inducing infringement of this patent through the use of Medtronic's "Evolut" heart valve products. The court ultimately reversed a lower court's decision, ruling that prosecution history estoppel prevented Colibri from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to the cancellation of a related claim during the patent's prosecution. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/colibri-heart-valve-llc-v-medtronic-corevalve-llc-decided-july-18-2025

This case involves a dispute between Top Brand LLC ("Top Brand") and Cozy Comfort Company LLC ("Cozy Comfort"), competitors in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts/wearable blankets. Cozy Comfort accused Top Brand of infringing its U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 (the “D788 patent”) and two trademarks for “THE COMFY.” A jury initially found in favor of Cozy Comfort on both patent and trademark infringement, awarding significant damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) for Top Brand on both the design patent and trademark infringement claims. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/top-brand-llc-v-cozy-comfort-company-llc-decided-july-17-2025

This patent infringement case between Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was consolidated with a similar case against Mylan Laboratories Ltd. The core of the dispute centers on Janssen's U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which covers dosing regimens for long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications. The appeal specifically addresses the District Court's finding that Teva failed to prove the patent invalid for obviousness, particularly regarding the unequal, decreasing loading doses and renal impairment dosage adjustments outlined in the patent claims. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decision, concluding that Teva did not provide clear and convincing evidence to establish obviousness. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/janssen-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-decided-july-8-2025

Egenera alleged that Cisco's Unified Computing System (UCS) infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, which pertains to automated deployment of virtual processing networks. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decisions, including the summary judgment of noninfringement for claims 1 and 5, and the denial of Egenera's post-trial motions regarding claims 3 and 7. Key issues involved the construction of patent claim terms like "computer processor" and "emulate Ethernet functionality," and the sufficiency of evidence presented by Egenera to prove infringement. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/egenera-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-decided-july-7-2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal in the case of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. The core issue revolves around patent infringement, specifically concerning Crown's double seaming technology used in beverage cans. The district court had previously ruled that certain claims of Crown's patents were invalid due to indefiniteness, meaning the patent claims were not clear enough to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that different methods for measuring a key claimed angle in the patent led to materially different results, thus rendering the claims indefinite.  See the case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/ball-metal-beverage-container-corporation-v-crown-packaging-technology-inc-decided-june-30-2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal by Quartz Auto Technologies LLC against Lyft, Inc. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of specific claim terms in two of Quartz's patents, the ’871 patent concerning remote automobile monitoring and correction, and the ’215 patent on managing information technology (IT) devices. The dispute stems from a prior District Court for the Northern District of California ruling that construed these terms, leading Lyft and Quartz to stipulate to non-infringement based on that construction. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's claim constructions, concluding that the disputed terms are limited to automobile-based defects for the ’871 patent and to problems within IT devices for the ’215 patent, thus upholding the non-infringement judgment in favor of Lyft. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/lyft-inc-v-quartz-auto-technologies-llc-decided-jun-27-2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details a patent infringement appeal brought by Larry Golden against Google LLC. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Golden's amended complaint, which alleged Google infringed his patents related to a chemical/biological/radiological detector unit with a disabling locking system through its Pixel smartphones. The court found Golden's claims of direct, indirect, willful, and joint infringement failed because his theories required post-sale modification of Google's products or lacked sufficient factual allegations regarding control in alleged joint infringement. Essentially, the court concluded that Golden did not plausibly demonstrate Google's products infringed his patents as sold. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/larry-golden-v-google-llc-decided-june-25-2025

This case concerns the patent eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 7,773,588 B2 (the “’588 patent”), held by DirectPacket Research, Inc. ("directPacket"). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ’588 patent is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/directpacket-research-inc-v-polycom-inc-decided-june-25-2025

The core of the dispute involves Optis's claims that Apple infringed on five of its standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to LTE technology, used in iPhones, iPads, and Watches. The court vacated earlier judgments on infringement and damages, mandating a new trial due to a non-unanimous jury verdict on infringement and the improper inclusion of an Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement as evidence for damages. Additionally, the court reversed previous rulings regarding the patent eligibility of certain claims and the interpretation of another claim, while affirming a different claim construction, ultimately remanding the case for further proceedings. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/optis-cellular-technology-llc-v-apple-inc-decided-june-16-2025  

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's final judgment of false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under state law against ThermoLife International LLC, Ronald L. Kramer, and Muscle Beach Nutrition LLC (collectively, "Appellants" or "defendants"). The appellate court found that BPI Sports, LLC ("BPI" or "plaintiff") failed to prove the "literal falsity" element of its false advertising claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's sanctions order against the Appellants regarding attorneys' fees, stemming from Mr. Kramer's bad-faith creation of a backdated license agreement and subsequent discovery obstruction. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/bpi-sports-v-thermolife-decided-june-16-2025  

eligibility (Section 101), damages, infringement analysis, and IPR estoppel. These cases provide valuable guidance on the court's current thinking and strategic considerations for practitioners. Key takeaways include the paramount importance of the intrinsic record in claim construction, the continued challenges in establishing patent eligibility for software-related inventions, strict scrutiny of damages expert methodologies, the limitations of Section 271(e) remedies, and the careful delineation of IPR estoppel. Written summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/federal-circuit-may-2025-decisions  

This case concerns the patent eligibility of United Services Automobile Association's (USAA) mobile check deposit technology, specifically U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638 ('638 patent). The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's finding of patent eligibility, concluding that the asserted claim (claim 20 of the '638 patent) is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as defined by the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l framework. The court held that merely implementing conventional banking processes (like reviewing, recognizing, error-checking, and storing check data) on a generic handheld mobile device, even with features like real-time error checking and OCR, does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/usaa-v-pnc-bank-n-a-decided-june-12-2025

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) appealed the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action. This marks the second time this case has been before the Federal Circuit. In Mitek I (2022), the court vacated the initial dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again dismissed the action, finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, exercising its discretion to decline jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's dismissal. Case Summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/mitek-v-usaa-decided-june-12-2025

This case involves an appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM Radio Inc. (SXM), which found that Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.'s (Fraunhofer) patent infringement claims were barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether SXM relied on Fraunhofer's alleged misleading conduct. While the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court that Fraunhofer's five-year silence constituted misleading conduct and that SXM would suffer prejudice if Fraunhofer's claims were allowed to proceed (assuming reliance), the critical element of reliance was not indisputably established on the record. The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, including consideration of the parties' remaining summary judgment motions. Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/fraunhofer-gesellschaft-zur-f%C3%B6rderung-der-angewandten-forschung-e-v-v-sirius-xm-radio-inc-decide

The appeal centers on a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware concerning the validity of a patent claim under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). The court affirms the lower court's ruling, finding that claim 5 of one patent cannot be used as an ODP reference to invalidate claim 26 of another, citing a recent controlling decision in a similar case. The opinion was decided on June 9, 2025, and is noted as nonprecedential. Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-aurobindo-pharma-ltd-decided-june-9-2025

Alnylam alleged that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®, infringed on two of Alnylam's patents regarding cationic lipids used in mRNA delivery. The core issue on appeal is the claim construction of the term "branched alkyl" as it relates to a specific carbon atom's bonding within the lipid structure. The court analyzes the patent specification and prosecution history to determine if Alnylam acted as its own lexicographer in defining the term and if any exception to that definition was "otherwise specified" in the asserted claims. Ultimately, the court affirms the district court's construction, which required the carbon atom to be bound to at least three other carbon atoms.  Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/alnylam-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-moderna-inc-modernatx-inc-moderna-us-inc-decided-june-4-2

The case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Acufloor against EvenTile and FORPAC regarding two of Acufloor's patents related to tile leveling devices. The appeal specifically addresses challenges to the district court's construction of two claim terms. The Federal Circuit modified one claim construction, rejected the other, vacated the judgment of non-infringement, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read the case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/acufloor-llc-v-eventile-inc-forpac-llc-decided-may-28-2025

This nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion addresses an appeal from Stylwan IP Holding, LLC against Stress Engineering Services, Inc. following a judgment of noninfringement by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The dispute centers on Stylwan's six patents related to non-destructive systems for assessing material integrity, particularly in industrial settings like pipelines. The core issue on appeal involves the district court's construction of certain claim terms, specifically the "program limitations," which Stylwan argued were too narrow by incorporating specific mathematical equations and autonomous functionality described in the patent embodiments. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction, concluding that the patent's intrinsic evidence supports the inclusion of both the autonomous functionality and the specific "identifier equations." Because this claim construction was upheld, the court also affirmed the noninfringement judgment and did not need to address other issues raised, such as Stress Engineering Services' cross-appeal regarding patent eligibility. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/stylwan-ip-holding-llc-v-stress-engineering-services-inc-decided-may-27-2025

The primary focus in this case is on whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing EcoFactor's damages expert to testify based on insufficient facts or data regarding prior lump-sum licenses, which the expert argued demonstrated an established per-unit royalty rate. The majority opinion reverses the district court's denial of Google's motion for a new trial on damages, finding the expert's testimony unreliable, while reinstating portions of a prior panel opinion affirming the denial of non-infringement and summary judgment motions. Concurring and dissenting opinions highlight disagreements on whether the record evidence supports the expert's reliance on the prior licenses and whether the district court's actions constituted an abuse of discretion.

This nonprecedential court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerns an appeal by Fintiv, Inc. against Apple Inc. regarding alleged infringement of a patent related to mobile wallets and associated software, termed "widgets." Fintiv had sued Apple, claiming that Apple's products using Apple Pay and Apple Wallet infringed on their patent. The core issue at the district court level, and the focus of this appeal, was the interpretation and identification of a "widget" within Apple's technology, as defined by the patent. The Appeals Court reversed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Apple, finding that Fintiv presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a genuine dispute regarding the existence of a widget, and remanded the case for further consideration of related claim limitations and other potential grounds for summary judgment. Full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/fintiv-inc-v-apple-inc-decided-may-16-2025

This nonprecedential appellate opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses Yoldas Askan's appeal of a district court's dismissal of his patent infringement lawsuit against FARO Technologies, Inc. The court affirms the district court's decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim, finding that Askan's pleadings were conclusory and lacked sufficient factual allegations of infringement. The opinion also confirms the district court's discretion to reconsider its judgment and its authority to strike FARO's answer to the complaint. Finally, the court upheld the district court's refusal to allow discovery to enable Askan to gather information needed to plead a plausible claim. Full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/yoldas-askan-v-faro-technologies-inc-decided-may-12-2025

This appeal concerns a preliminary injunction previously granted by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which prevented Sun Pharmaceutical from launching its drug Leqselvi. The core of the dispute involves Incyte's claim of patent infringement related to its patent on deuterated ruxolitinib, a drug used to treat autoimmune disorders, and Sun Pharmaceutical's launch of a similar product for alopecia areata. The appellate court focuses on whether the district court correctly found irreparable harm to Incyte, ultimately reversing the preliminary injunction based on a finding that Incyte would not be the first to market regardless of Sun Pharmaceutical's actions due to Incyte's product development timeline. Full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/incyte-corporation-v-sun-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-decided-may-7-2025-precedential

IOENGINE is challenging a jury verdict from the District of Delaware that found certain claims of IOENGINE's patents related to portable devices invalid based on prior art. Specifically, IOENGINE appeals the finding that the DiskOnKey System, including its Firmware Upgrader, was in public use before the invention date, which invalidates their patents. IOENGINE also contested the district court's jury instructions and the allowance of certain prior art at trial. The court affirms the district court's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of public use and that the jury instructions were proper. The court also clarifies that Inter Partes Review (IPR) estoppel does not prevent a party from asserting invalidity grounds in district court based on prior art that could not have been raised in the IPR proceeding, such as public use or on sale grounds.  Written case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/ioengine-v-ingenico-decided-may-7-2025

The core of the dispute involves Avadel's product, Lumryz, and whether the district court correctly issued a permanent injunction preventing Avadel from engaging in certain activities related to it, specifically concerning its patent U.S. Patent 11,147,782. The appeals court addressed three distinct enjoined activities: initiating new clinical trials, offering open-label extensions in ongoing trials, and applying for FDA approval for new indications of Lumryz, ultimately reversing the injunction on the first two grounds and vacating and remanding the third for further consideration based on the legal interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and the applicability of the Hatch-Waxman Act's safe harbor provision. The decision focuses on the limitations on injunctive relief for certain activities related to FDA submissions and clinical trials under patent law.

STR is appealing a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware, which dismissed their patent infringement lawsuit. The district court ruled that the asserted claims of STR's '988 patent, which concerns a system and method for determining the taxability status of an aircraft, were invalid because they were directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the claims were abstract and lacked sufficient novelty, noting that the method of collecting and analyzing data and using common sense principles did not constitute an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Written case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/aviation-capital-partners-v-sh-advisors-patent-eligibility-decided-may-6-2025.

Topics covered include prosecution history disclaimer and its interaction with litigation stipulations in a Hatch-Waxman case (Azurity v. Alkem), the analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly for software and image processing claims focusing on the requirement for specific "how" details beyond abstract ideas (Longitude Licensing v. Google), induced infringement in the context of ANDA filings and the weight given to drug label instructions versus other evidence (Metacel v. Rubicon), and design patent infringement, emphasizing the importance of the ordinary observer test and plain dissimilarity based on ornamental features at the summary judgment stage (North Star Technology v. Latham Pool Products). Finally, one source discusses the procedural challenges of seeking relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b), highlighting the critical role of timeliness and preserving arguments during initial proceedings and appeals (Wakefield v. Blackboard).

Geoscope alleged that Google and Apple infringed on several of its patents related to determining the location of mobile devices. The district court had found the patents were directed to patent ineligible subject matter as abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit affirms the district court's decision, concluding that the patent claims, while describing comparing data from known and unknown locations to determine location, lack an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data using existing technology. The court found the claims relied on generic functional language and did not specify novel techniques or technology for improving geolocation.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of certain terms within Fintiv's patents related to a "payment handler" or "payment handler service" in a cloud-based transaction system. The District Court had previously ruled these terms indefinite, finding they recited functions without disclosing sufficient structure as required by patent law, specifically under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. The Federal Circuit reviews the lower court's decision, ultimately affirming that the payment-handler terms invoke this section of law and that the patent specifications lack the necessary structural or algorithmic details, leading to the claims being deemed invalid due to indefiniteness. Detailed case summary here

Longitude appealed the dismissal by the Northern District of California of its lawsuit against Google for infringement of four patents related to digital image correction. The district court had found the patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a decision the Federal Circuit affirmed. Applying the two-step Alice framework, the court agreed the claims were directed to the abstract idea of adjusting image quality based on the main object, lacking an inventive concept. Detailed case summary here

North Star sued Latham Pool Products for allegedly infringing its design patent for a rectangular swimming pool with tanning ledges. The district court granted summary judgment for Latham, finding the pool designs plainly dissimilar. Specifically, the court noted North Star's design used straight, geometric shapes, while Latham's featured rounded, curved elements. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that an ordinary observer would not mistake one pool for the other. The appellate court also emphasized that design patents protect only ornamental, non-functional aspects and cannot monopolize common design elements. Finally, the court found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings and upheld the non-infringement finding.  Full case summary

This case concerns Franz A. Wakefield's appeal of the District Court's denial of his motion for relief from a prior judgment of patent invalidity against several technology companies. Wakefield's initial patent infringement suit regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,162,696 was previously decided against him. He subsequently filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that claims within the patent should have been considered differently and raising concerns about a judge on the appellate panel. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that Wakefield's motion was untimely and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his requests. The court also addressed and rejected Wakefield's arguments regarding a rehearing. Full case summary

Metacel accused Rubicon of inducing infringement of its patent (U.S. Patent 10,610,502) for an oral baclofen solution stored at refrigerated temperatures. The core issue was whether Rubicon's proposed label for its generic version, which primarily instructed room temperature storage but permitted refrigeration, would lead users to infringe Metacel's patent. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment of no infringement, reasoning that Rubicon's label did not encourage the patented storage method. Full case summary

Recentive sued Fox for infringing four of its patents related to using machine learning to generate network maps and event schedules for television broadcasts and live events. The district court initially dismissed the case, finding Recentive's patents claimed ineligible subject matter under patent law. The Federal Circuit affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the patents merely described the application of generic machine learning techniques to a specific field without demonstrating any inventive improvement to the technology itself. The court determined that applying existing technology to a new data environment or achieving faster results does not automatically confer patent eligibility. Full case summary

This Federal Circuit opinion addresses an appeal by WSOU Investments LLC (Brazos) against F5, Inc. regarding a patent for network traffic distribution. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term "master device" within the patent claims. The district court had adopted Brazos's proposed construction during claim construction but later granted summary judgment of noninfringement to F5. Brazos appealed this decision, arguing for a new interpretation of "master device" that differed from its earlier stance. The Federal Circuit found that Brazos had forfeited this new argument by not presenting it to the district court. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding Brazos to its previously advocated claim construction.

Azurity's U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948 relates to a liquid vancomycin formulation. The appeal follows a district court ruling that Alkem's Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic version did not infringe Azurity's patent. The central issue revolved around whether Azurity disclaimed the inclusion of propylene glycol during the patent's prosecution. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Azurity did clearly disclaim propylene glycol, and because Alkem's proposed generic product contains it, no infringement occurred.

This Federal Circuit opinion details a long-standing legal battle between AMS-OSRAM and Renesas regarding misappropriated trade secrets for ambient-light sensor technology used in electronics. The court reviews appeals from both parties concerning monetary awards for trade secret misappropriation and breach of a confidentiality agreement. While the court adjusts the date when the trade secret was considered publicly accessible, it largely upholds the district court's rulings on damages, including disgorgement of profits and exemplary damages. However, the court identifies errors in the calculation of prejudgment interest and remands that specific issue for further consideration.

Express Mobile sued GoDaddy for infringing five of its patents related to website building and display technologies. The district court initially ruled in favor of GoDaddy, granting summary judgment of noninfringement for two patents (the '397 family) based on its claim construction and a jury finding of noninfringement for the other three ('755 family). On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's interpretation of a key phrase in the '397 family patents, vacating the summary judgment and sending that part of the case back for further proceedings. However, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict of noninfringement and the denial of post-trial motions for the '755 patent family, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's decision. Thus, the case has been partially reversed, partially affirmed, and remanded for additional litigation on specific patent claims.

Janssen sued Mylan for allegedly inducing patent infringement through its proposed generic drug labels for a treatment of missed doses of Janssen's schizophrenia medication, Invega Trinza. The district court found in favor of Janssen, determining that Mylan would likely induce healthcare providers to infringe Janssen's patent and that Mylan failed to prove the patent was invalid. Mylan appealed this decision, arguing against the findings of induced infringement and nonobviousness of the patent. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the district court's decision, finding Mylan's arguments unpersuasive on both issues.

This Federal Circuit opinion documents an appeal and cross-appeal in a patent infringement lawsuit between Roland Corporation and inMusic Brands concerning electronic drums and cymbals. Roland initially sued inMusic for infringing eight patents. The district court granted partial summary judgment of non-infringement, and a jury subsequently found the remaining patents infringed. Both parties appealed aspects of the district court's rulings, including claim construction, expert testimony, infringement findings, validity, damages, equitable estoppel, and prejudgment interest. The Federal Circuit affirmed some findings, reversed others, vacated the damages award, and remanded for a new trial on damages, finding errors in the calculation of both lost profits and reasonable royalties, while also addressing the denial of prejudgment interest.

In this case, Wash World appealed a district court's decision finding infringement of Belanger's patent for a vehicle spray washer with a lighted spray arm. The appellate court addressed issues of claim construction, ultimately finding that WASH WORLD had forfeited most of its arguments by not properly raising them in the lower court. However, the court agreed with Wash World regarding the damages award, finding insufficient evidence to support lost profits from unpatented "convoyed sales." Consequently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the infringement finding but vacated and remanded the damages portion, instructing the district court to reduce the award by approximately $2.6 million.

In this case, the appeals court affirms the lower court's findings of patent invalidity due to anticipation by prior art and the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim for lack of unambiguous falsity in advertising. It also upholds sanctions against the plaintiffs for bad faith litigation conduct related to disclosing patent ownership changes. However, the court vacates and remands a portion of the sanctions concerning a violation of a local patent rule, requiring further findings of bad faith. Lastly, the court affirms the denial of attorney's fees based on the defendants' allegations of inequitable conduct by Lowe before the PTO.

Maquet appealed a district court judgment of non-infringement concerning claims in its U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 related to intravascular blood pump systems. The appellate court reviewed the district court's claim construction of terms like "guide mechanism comprising a lumen" and "guide wire," finding errors in the application of prosecution disclaimer. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court's judgment on the '783 patent and remanded the case for further proceedings based on a corrected understanding of the claim language. The judgment of non-infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,789,238 was left undisturbed as it was not part of the appeal.

This case is an appeal by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals against a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction. Regeneron sought to prevent Amgen from marketing a biosimilar of its drug EYLEA®, arguing patent infringement. The central issue is whether Regeneron's patent requires the "VEGF antagonist" and a "buffer" in its formulation to be separate components. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the patent claims imply these are distinct elements. This finding means Amgen's biosimilar, which uses the aflibercept itself for buffering, likely does not infringe Regeneron's patent. The court's analysis heavily relied on the specific language of Regeneron's patent claims and its written description.

This concerns Innova's appeal of a district court's preliminary injunction favoring Power Probe in a patent infringement lawsuit. Power Probe sued Innova for allegedly infringing its patent on an electrical test device. The district court initially denied the injunction but was reversed on appeal regarding claim construction. Subsequently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding Power Probe likely to succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's decision based on four factors for preliminary injunctions and the Ninth Circuit's abuse of discretion standard. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its analysis of the relevant factors.

The central issue here is the proper calculation of patent term extensions (PTEs) for reissued patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act, specifically whether the extension should be based on the original patent's issue date or the reissued patent's issue date. The court affirms the district court's finding that for reissued patents retaining claims to a drug product that underwent regulatory review after the original patent's issuance, the PTE should be calculated from the original patent's issue date, supporting the purpose of compensating for lost market exclusivity during regulatory delays.

IQRIS Technologies LLC and Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., concerns quick-release systems for tactical vests. IQRIS appealed a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement, which was based on a narrow interpretation of the patent claim term "pull cord." The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's claim construction, specifically addressing whether a "pull cord" must be directly pulled and whether it can include a handle. Ultimately, the appellate court found the district court's construction to be erroneous, holding that the term does not necessarily require direct pulling and can encompass cords with handles. As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for reconsideration under the corrected claim interpretation regarding both literal and equivalent infringement.

The court affirmed the district court's decision that IMMUNOGEN's patent application for a specific dosing regimen of its cancer drug, IMGN853, was unpatentable due to obviousness. The central issue was whether using an adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW) based dosage of 6 mg/kg for the drug would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art at the time of the invention, considering existing knowledge about the drug and dosing methods, even if the specific ocular toxicity problem the inventors aimed to solve was not yet publicly known for this drug. The court found that prior art disclosed similar dosing and recognized the potential for toxicity, making the claimed dosing regimen obvious.

In Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Stewart, the court affirmed the dismissal of Odyssey's complaint, which sought to compel the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review a prior Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision. Odyssey's request for review was based on an Appointments Clause challenge, which they raised after the Supreme Court's decision in Arthrex. The court found that Odyssey forfeited this argument by failing to raise it during their original appeal, and therefore the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for Director review. The dismissal was ultimately affirmed for failure to state a claim, rather than lack of jurisdiction.

This Federal Circuit opinion details Celltrion's appeal of a preliminary injunction preventing them from launching a biosimilar version of Regeneron's EYLEA. The court affirms the district court's decision, finding that Celltrion did not demonstrate a substantial question of invalidity regarding Regeneron's patent. Key to the ruling was the patentable distinction found in the '865 patent's stability requirement compared to an earlier patent. The court also noted that previous appeals from other companies challenging similar injunctions were considered, with some arguments conceded by Celltrion based on those prior rulings.