CAFC-PTOAugust 26, 2026·26-1357·Appeal No. 2026-1357 dismissed; each side bears its own costs; mandate issued as to that appeal only. Appeal No. 2026-1390 remains pending.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbH
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Federal Circuit deconsolidated the appeals and voluntarily dismissed Appeal No. 2026-1357 under Rule 42(b). The court did not reach any patent-law merits issue.
Why It Matters
This is a procedural termination of one PTAB appeal only, leaving the related cross-appeal to proceed under the court’s prior scheduling/order requirements.
Full Summary
Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbH
The Federal Circuit deconsolidated the appeals and voluntarily dismissed Appeal No. 2026-1357 under Rule 42(b). The court did not reach any patent-law merits issue.
This is a procedural termination of one PTAB appeal only, leaving the related cross-appeal to proceed under the court’s prior scheduling/order requirements.
Appeal No. 2026-1357 dismissed; each side bears its own costs; mandate issued as to that appeal only. Appeal No. 2026-1390 remains pending.
The order is nonprecedential and addresses only voluntary dismissal procedure.
The appeal arose from PTAB IPR2024-00948, but the order does not identify the challenged patent, technology, or merits issues.
The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss Appeal No. 2026-1357 under FRAP 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
The Federal Circuit deconsolidated the appeals and revised the captions accordingly.
Appeal No. 2026-1390 was not dismissed and remains subject to the court’s June 24, 2026 order.
non-precedential
non-precedential
non-precedential
Key Points
The order is nonprecedential and addresses only voluntary dismissal procedure.
The appeal arose from PTAB IPR2024-00948, but the order does not identify the challenged patent, technology, or merits issues.
The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss Appeal No. 2026-1357 under FRAP 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
The Federal Circuit deconsolidated the appeals and revised the captions accordingly.
Appeal No. 2026-1390 was not dismissed and remains subject to the court’s June 24, 2026 order.
We use essential cookies to run the site, and analytics and Google Ads advertising cookies only if you allow them. We use cookies strictly necessary to run the site (sign-in, payments). With your consent we also use analytics, and Google Ads advertising cookies that record which ad brought you here and let us show our ads to past visitors. You can accept or decline these non-essential cookies. See our Privacy & Cookie Policy.