Federal Circuit & PTAB
AI-summarized opinions published the same day they drop — showing today's decisions
391 decisions
391 decisions
REMANDED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Disposition not detected
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
DISMISSED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not plausibly allege an imminent future injury traceable to the PTO's patent-cover language. The court also held that amendment would be futile and affirmed dismissal.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determinations. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings on motivation to combine, use of ligation as an obvious design choice for flexibility, and disclosure of the challenged “correlate” limitations; the court also rejected an unpreserved motivation-to-combine challenge to the ’013 patent IPR.
Appeal dismissed; mandate issued August 19, 2026.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to the parties’ Rule 42(b) stipulation. Each side must bear its own costs.
Affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part; costs awarded to Volkswagen.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal without leave to amend because VDPP’s proposed amended complaint was futile: it sought pre-suit damages but did not plausibly plead compliance with § 287 by VDPP’s licensees. The court also affirmed the § 285 fee award and dismissed the counsel-sanctions appeal for lack of jurisdiction because counsel did not timely notice an appeal in his own name.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that Bosch failed to prove Klügl disclosed the disputed limitation requiring the hydraulic fluid to act substantially as a solid with substantially constant thickness during activation. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s reliance on Klügl’s repeated description of membrane 6 as flexible and its credibility assessment discounting Bosch’s expert testimony.
Erratum issued; no merits disposition is stated in the extracted erratum.
The erratum corrects page 3, footnote 1 of the nonprecedential opinion by changing the word "permissible" to "impermissible." The extracted text does not provide the underlying merits holding.
Appeal dismissed; each side bears its own costs. The order issued as the mandate on August 17, 2026.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The court did not reach any merits issue.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
VACATED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Disposition not detected
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
REMANDED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that Hill anticipated claims 1 and 4. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings on the claimed transmission requests, serial-number tracking in the player buffer, and receipt at a rate faster than playback.
Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-08-06): 9 proceedings. 4 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00035, IPR2026-00213, IPR2026-00266, IPR2026-00214); 5 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00297, PGR2026-00039, PGR2026-00023, IPR2026-00330, IPR2026-00296).
Proceedings
IPR2026-00297, PGR2026-00039, PGR2026-00023, PGR2026-00035, IPR2026-00213 +4 more
Affirmed the PTAB's final written decision holding claim 1 of the '015 patent unpatentable as anticipated.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of "mounted to" as "connected to, either directly or indirectly." Because Ravin did not separately challenge anticipation under that construction, the court affirmed the Board's § 102 unpatentability determination.
Affirmed; costs awarded to Lululemon.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable, including anticipation by Amano and obviousness over Amano combined with Gorman or Flach. The court rejected Nike’s claim-construction and prior-art arguments, holding that the Board’s anticipation and motivation-to-combine findings were supported by substantial evidence.
VACATED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Disposition not detected
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
DISMISSED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Disposition not detected
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Disposition not detected
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
AFFIRMED
Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment without a written opinion under Rule 36. The judgment does not identify the patent-law issues decided or the panel’s reasoning.
Reversed the indefiniteness-related portions of the claim-construction and partial summary-judgment orders, vacated the order dissolving the preliminary injunction, and remanded.
The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by finding the distance-related claim terms indefinite; the terms were facially clear, supported by the specification and prosecution history, and measurable with conventional tools. The district court improperly conflated definiteness with enablement by focusing on whether a skilled artisan could use the patent to build an operable magazine.
Transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Federal Circuit held that the appeal did not fall within its limited district-court appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. It transferred the matter and all filings to the D.C. Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board did not violate the APA by relying on Samsung’s oral-hearing statements because they elaborated on an issue already raised, not a new unpatentability theory. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Kwak disclosed the disputed limitation requiring each N-length predefined sequence to be mapped to N subcarriers.
Appeal dismissed; mandate issued July 29, 2026.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. Each side will bear its own costs.
Appeal dismissed; each party bears its own costs.
The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Each party will bear its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate.
Reversed the district court's denial of JMOL on anticipation and noninfringement; did not reach UT's cross-appeal on willfulness; costs awarded to Boston Scientific.
The Federal Circuit held that Boston Scientific was entitled to JMOL that asserted claims 1, 11, 17, and 26 were anticipated by the Song prior-art patent. The court also held that Boston Scientific was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement because no reasonable jury could find the accused stent coating met the construed 'fiber' limitation.
Appeals dismissed; all pending motions denied; each party to bear its own costs.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals, holding that collateral challenges to the district court’s remand order were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The court also held that the remaining challenges were frivolous, including recusal arguments based on disagreement with prior rulings and attempts to revive dismissed actions based on a forfeited challenge to the state-court judgment.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in construing claim 1 to impose no required order between sensing/measuring accelerations and filtering them. Substantial evidence supported the Board's obviousness findings for both the challenged claims and the proposed substitute claims.
Affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the sanctions allocation, holding that the district court did not rely on an ex parte letter and did not abuse its discretion in splitting responsibility evenly between Moarbes and FrenchPorte. Moarbes had conceded that sanctions were appropriate and challenged only its share of responsibility.
Dismissed; mandate issued July 23, 2026.
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. Each side must bear its own costs.
