Case Opinion Blog

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision in the appeal concerning Application No. 16/108,860, issuing a per curiam judgment under Fed. Cir. R. 36 without opinion.

Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-10-08

Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-10-08): 7 proceedings. 4 Trial Instituted (IPR2026-00364, IPR2026-00325, PGR2026-00034, IPR2026-00339); 2 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00373, PGR2026-00055); 1 Institution Denied (IPR2026-00340).

Dismissed.

On the parties' agreement, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from the PTAB's decision in IPR2024-00580 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The order does not reach the merits.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision sustaining the examiner's § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections of all pending claims of the '077 application. Mr. Gamble forfeited any substantive argument both before the Board (by not contesting the rejections in his appeal brief) and before the court (by not raising any in his opening brief), and his rehearing request did not meaningfully address the newly rejected dependent claims.

INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED

The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1525 based on a complaint by trinamiX Sensing LLC and trinamiX GmbH against Apple Inc. The investigation targets iPhones and iPads and related components, including processors and TrueDepth camera components with VCSEL, flood illumination VCSEL, and near-infrared camera modules used for face authentication, 3D sensing, and/or material detection.

Petition granted; the transfer-denial order was vacated, and the district court was directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.

The Federal Circuit held that denial of transfer was a clear abuse of discretion because multiple convenience factors favored NDCA and no factor favored WDTX. The court faulted the district court's neutral treatment of sources of proof, local interest, and compulsory process on the record presented.

Dismissed; issued as the mandate on October 6, 2026.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.

Vacated and remanded with instructions to enter a new order dismissing Simon’s indemnification claim without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). No costs.

The Federal Circuit held that Simon’s motion, though styled under Rules 54(b) and 60(a), was properly construed as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion and that relief was available to correct the district court’s legal error. The court held the indemnification claim was not moot because Simon and Blackhawk continued to have a live controversy over indemnification.

Reversed-in-part, affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The court directed entry of partial summary judgment of infringement for claims 1, 2, and 8 of the '324 patent, remanded for further proceedings on claims 4, 9, and 10 of the '324 patent, and affirmed non-infringement as to the remaining addressed claims.

The Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly narrowed the ordinary meaning of "joined" in claim 1 of the '324 patent and that the accused products met that limitation. The court otherwise affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement based on the "configured to," "sandwiched," "three spaced apertures," and other disputed limitations.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's determination that the challenged claims were not enabled. The court held that the Board did not err in relying on post-priority experimental data submitted by Pioneer, where the tested variants could have been made at the priority date, and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the specification did not enable the full claimed genus.

Motion granted; appeal dismissed; costs awarded to Nomad Grill LLC; mandate issued October 2, 2026.

The Federal Circuit granted Nomad Goods’ motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. The court awarded costs to Nomad Grill and issued the mandate the same day.

Dismissed as moot; no costs.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot because, in a companion appeal decided the same day, it concluded that claim 1 of the ’385 patent is invalid. The court did not reach the merits of the PTAB’s obviousness rejection.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Truinject forfeited the appellate theories it relied on to challenge dismissal of tortious interference and summary judgment of no damages. With damages off the table, Truinject had no viable appellate path to relief on its contract or trade-secret claims.

Affirmed the district court’s final judgment of invalidity, but on lack-of-enablement grounds rather than indefiniteness. Costs awarded to Samsung.

The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not indefinite because their scope was reasonably certain even though they covered a scientifically impossible embodiment. The court nevertheless affirmed invalidity because the claims were not enabled under § 112(a): the full claim scope included an inoperable alternative that a skilled artisan could not make or use.

Appeal dismissed, with each side to bear its own costs; mandate issued September 30, 2026.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The order does not address any patent-law merits issue.

Appeal dismissed; mandate issued September 30, 2026.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.

Dismissed; mandate issued September 30, 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.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

The Federal Circuit denied mandamus. MedComp did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief based on an alleged conflict between the Utah court's post-remand ruling and the mandate in a different AngioDynamics appeal.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's § 103 rejection, holding that the Board applied the same claim construction used in the earlier IPR and that substantial evidence supported the finding that Traversat suggested the disputed service-name limitation. The court also held that the CRU did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by refusing to reopen prosecution where WSOU did not amend or cancel the rejected claims or submit new evidence relating to them.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; request for reassignment denied; each party to bear its own costs.

The Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because there was no final judgment: Rule 54(b) did not permit a partial final judgment resolving only some asserted claims of the same patent while other asserted claims of that patent remained unresolved. The court also denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge on remand.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the earlier Wang ’808 application did not provide written-description support for the claimed “formed spirally” limitation, so Wang ’808 qualified as prior art. Because substantial evidence supported the Board’s Ground 1 obviousness determination over Wang ’808 in view of Gentry and/or Dufree, the court affirmed without reaching the other asserted grounds.

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings; costs awarded to Pen-Tech.

The Federal Circuit vacated because the district court did not provide enough reasoning to permit meaningful review of its denial of sanctions and fees. The panel did not decide whether Epic Tech or its counsel violated Rule 11 or whether Pen-Tech is entitled to fees.

Petition for panel rehearing denied; petition for rehearing en banc denied.

The Federal Circuit denied both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judge Dyk dissented, arguing the panel's enablement analysis for method claims conflicts with Amgen and permits overbroad functional claiming.

PRE-INSTITUTION COMPLAINT FILED

Essex Solutions Inc. and Essex Solutions USA LLC filed a Section 337 complaint targeting certain extrusion-coated magnet wire imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation by Wellascent Electronic (Ganzhou) Co., Ltd. and Wellascent Technologies USA LLC. The Federal Register notice does not identify the asserted patents; complainants seek a limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders, and bond during the Presidential review period.

PRE-INSTITUTION COMPLAINT FILED

Netlist, Inc. filed a Section 337 complaint targeting certain dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices, products containing the same, and components thereof; the Federal Register notice does not identify the asserted patents. Netlist seeks a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the Presidential review period.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of “feature vector” to include codewords/vector-quantized representative feature vectors because claim 1 covers quantities “extracted and/or derived” from a digital audio stream. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Jiang’s codewords met that construction, sustaining the obviousness determination.

Affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of targeting advertisements to internet users to maximize revenue generation and lack an inventive concept. The court also held that AudienceScience forfeited its request for leave to amend by never seeking amendment below or identifying specific curative allegations.

The Director denied institution of Biocon’s PGR challenging claims 1–38 of Regeneron’s biologics/pharmaceutical Patent No. 12,168,036 because the petition was filed more than nine months after patent issuance and therefore was barred by 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The Director held that § 325(c) joinder requires a petition to be “properly filed” and that 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)’s one-month joinder-request deadline cannot override the statutory nine-month PGR filing deadline; no prior Board merits decision was reversed or affirmed.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION AND INSTITUTION DECISION VACATED; INSTITUTION DENIED

On sua sponte Director Review, the Director vacated the Board's Final Written Decision and its institution decision and denied institution, exercising discretion to de-institute the IPR. The Director reasoned that, given a prior IPR on the same patent in which the claims were found not unpatentable based on objective indicia evidence (affirmed by the Federal Circuit), and the Petitioner's settlement with the Patent Owner, maintaining the IPR would waste Office resources, risk inconsistent outcomes, and impose added expense on the Patent Owner despite the settled dispute.

Appeal dismissed; order issued as the mandate on September 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.

Notice of Decisions on Institution — 2026-09-23

Director's Notice of Decisions on Institution (2026-09-23): 11 proceedings. 5 Trial Instituted (PGR2026-00042, IPR2026-00363, PGR2026-00043, IPR2026-00336, PGR2026-00037); 3 Discretionary Denial (IPR2026-00351, IPR2026-00371, IPR2026-00362); 3 Institution Denied (IPR2026-00331, IPR2026-00337, IPR2026-00332).

INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED

The ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1524 based on a complaint by Ultra-Mek, Incorporated, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, and L&P Property Management Company alleging infringement of four patents by imported powered rocker-recliner and glider-recliner mechanisms and seating units containing them. The named respondents include Jiangsu Carya, Living Style entities, True Innovations & Design (USA), Henglin/Hengning/Hengjian entities, Colamy, Aurora Maison, and Aerisnexus.

INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED

The ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1523 based on Netlist, Inc.'s complaint alleging Section 337 violations through importation and sale of certain DDR5 DRAM DIMM devices, products containing them, and components thereof. Named respondents include Micron Technology, Micron Semiconductor Products, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Lenovo Group, Lenovo (United States), and Super Micro Computer.

Dismissed; mandate issued September 22, 2026.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.

INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED

The ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1522 based on a complaint by Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. alleging infringement of utility and design patents by imported wearable breast pumps, associated milk storage containers, and components. The investigation names multiple respondents in China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and the United States, and seeks a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

Motion granted; remanded to the USPTO. Each side bears its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate on September 21, 2026.

The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to remand after the parties stated that the PTAB relied on a reference that was not prior art in rejecting certain application claims. The order did not address the merits beyond remanding for further consideration.

Appeal dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed nearly two years after the district court's May 2024 judgment. The court held that the deadline for appealing a district-court judgment is mandatory and jurisdictional, leaving no room for equitable exceptions.

Reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment of patent eligibility and affirmed judgment for Teradata and the customer defendants on Counts I–V on the alternative ground of patent ineligibility; the court did not reach Berkeley's appeal issues.

The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because they are directed to the abstract idea of calculating profitability and do not recite an inventive concept. The alleged improvement—parallel processing inside an RDBMS—could not supply an inventive concept because the claims did not require parallel processing.

Appeal dismissed; each side bears its own costs.

The Federal Circuit held that the notice of appeal was untimely because it was received more than 30 days after entry of the appealed order. Because the statutory appeal deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the court lacked jurisdiction.

PRE-INSTITUTION COMPLAINT FILED

UnaliWear, Inc. filed a pre-institution Section 337 complaint targeting certain wearable activity and health monitoring devices and systems imported or sold by Samsung, Google, and Garmin entities. The Federal Register notice does not identify the asserted patents, and UnaliWear seeks a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the Presidential review period.