Patent Law University

66 decisions · Courts and the ITC

Patent Damages, Attorney Fees and Injunctions

Damages for infringement must be adequate to compensate and no less than a reasonable royalty (35 U.S.C. § 284). Courts may award attorney fees in exceptional cases (§ 285) and grant injunctions (§ 283). These posts also cover stays pending other proceedings.

New decisions are added every weekday. Get the free daily digest by email.

  1. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A.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…
  2. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.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.
  3. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe 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…
  4. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.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…
  5. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026BERKELEY*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc.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…
  6. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 17, 2026Carnegie Institution of Washington v. Fenix Diamonds LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the fee and expense award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional based on objectively baseless infringement positions after claim construction and…
  7. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc.The Federal Circuit held that TexasLDPC's enforcement-only business activities did not terminate the license agreement, and that the agreement transferred all substantial rights in the asserted patents to TexasLDPC. The court also held…
  8. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Service, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the district court misconstrued both “internal diameter” and “casing string,” and that TCO’s August 2012 sale of the TDP-PO tool to Apache and Apache’s use were prior art as a matter of law. The court vacated…
  9. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026Caddo Systems, Inc. v. JetBrains Americas, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s judgment under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no written rationale or identification of the specific patent-law issue decided.
  10. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim constructions, holding that "cooperating service provider" means a service provider that agrees to provide non-blocking bandwidth and that "non-blocking bandwidth" means bandwidth…
  11. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 10, 2026Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor CompanyThe Federal Circuit held that the district court legally erred by categorically limiting Versata to a licensing-history reasonable royalty and precluding unjust-enrichment damages for trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA and…
  12. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 8, 2026VIAVI Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the § 285 fee award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional based on Viavi's inadequate pre-suit investigation and its continued pursuit of claims after…
  13. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 31, 2026Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the asserted '761 and '700 patent optimization claims are patent-ineligible because they claim the result-oriented abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for parallel-decode capacity without reciting how…
  14. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C.The Federal Circuit lifted the stay imposed by its July 9, 2026 orders and granted DISH/DirecTV's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal Nos. 2026-1331 and 2026-1366. The court deconsolidated those appeals and Appeal No.…
  15. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLCThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the dispute turned on state-law contract interpretation and did not necessarily raise a substantial patent-law issue under Gunn. The court transferred the appeal to…
  16. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLCThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the dispute was a Texas contract-interpretation issue that did not necessarily raise a substantial patent-law question under Gunn. The court transferred the appeal to…
  17. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 21, 2026US Inventor, Inc. v. SquiresThe 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…
  18. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 19, 2026VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.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…
  19. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 17, 2026Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.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.
  20. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 14, 2026Jacki Easlick, LLC v. CJ EmeraldThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no likelihood of success on design-patent infringement and no irreparable harm. It also affirmed denial of reconsideration because the…
  21. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 4, 2026Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLCThe Federal Circuit held that the district court’s likelihood-of-success analysis rested on erroneous constructions of “backplate” and “pin.” It vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded, also noting that any presumption of…
  22. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 3, 2026In re Amazon.com Services LLCThe Federal Circuit denied Amazon's mandamus petition seeking to compel the Eastern District of Texas to stay the Headwater infringement case under the customer-suit exception. Amazon did not show a clear and indisputable right to a stay,…
  23. Fed. Cir. · July 30, 2026Taylor v. People of the Venue of the Foreign United StatesThe 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.
  24. Fed. Cir. · July 30, 2026Schmeisser GmbH v. AC-Unity d.o.o.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.…
  25. Fed. Cir. · July 23, 2026FRENCHPORTE IP LLC v. C.H.I. OVERHEAD DOORS, INC.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…
  26. Fed. Cir. · July 22, 2026MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GREEN REVOLUTION COOLING, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs.
  27. Fed. Cir. · July 22, 2026Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex AThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that collateral estoppel did not bar the district court from revisiting its earlier non-final reasoning in the same ongoing case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its…
  28. Fed. Cir. · July 15, 2026In re Zoho Corp. Pvt., Ltd.The Federal Circuit, applying Fifth Circuit law, held that denying transfer from EDTX to WDTX under § 1404(a) was not a clear abuse of discretion producing a patently erroneous result. The mandamus petition was denied.
  29. Fed. Cir. · July 13, 2026Ridge Corp. v. Kirk NationaLease Co.The Federal Circuit held that defendants raised substantial questions of noninfringement under three claim limitations and that plaintiffs had not shown likely irreparable harm. The district court therefore abused its discretion in…
  30. Fed. Cir. · July 10, 2026IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLCThe Federal Circuit vacated its prior opinion and dismissed the appeal under the parties' joint stipulation. All pending motions were denied as moot, and each party must bear its own fees and costs.
  31. Fed. Cir. · July 9, 2026WYETH LLC v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LPThe Federal Circuit affirmed JMOL of invalidity for lack of enablement under § 112(a). The claims required daily administration of a therapeutically effective unit dosage to a patient, and the specifications did not teach how to determine…
  32. Fed. Cir. · July 7, 2026In re Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLCThe Federal Circuit denied Lambeth's mandamus petition, holding Lambeth did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief from the district court's order staying the remanded infringement case pending ex parte reexamination of the…
  33. Fed. Cir. · July 1, 2026Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs LimitedThe Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the claim terms “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” in the asserted weight-to-weight ratio refer to the form administered, including salt forms, supporting Otsuka’s…
  34. Fed. Cir. · June 29, 2026Mejia v. YoungThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the case did not arise under the patent laws, did not involve district-court review of a PTO matter, and did not fit the limited Tucker Act category within its…
  35. Fed. Cir. · June 29, 2026In Re Core Scientific, Inc.The Federal Circuit denied Core Scientific's mandamus petition seeking transfer from E.D. Tex. to W.D. Tex. under § 1404(a). Core's right to relief was not clear and indisputable because its petition ignored the amended and third-party…
  36. Fed. Cir. · June 29, 2026Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The court did not reach any merits issue.
  37. Fed. Cir. · June 29, 2026FULKERSON v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEThe Federal Circuit held that Fulkerson failed to show the appeal fell within the court’s limited district-court appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Rather than dismiss, the court transferred the appeal and all filings to the…
  38. Fed. Cir. · June 24, 2026Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark OfficeThe Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal because the USPTO’s motion to dismiss was timely and the complaints failed to state a plausible claim under either the district court’s construction or the applicant’s asserted ultra vires theory.…
  39. Fed. Cir. · June 17, 2026Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker CorporationThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Stryker raised substantial questions of noninfringement and that Boston Scientific therefore failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The district court did not abuse its discretion…
  40. Fed. Cir. · June 11, 2026James v. United StatesThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district-court cases did not arise under the patent laws, involve PTO review, or fit the court’s limited Tucker Act appellate jurisdiction. The court also…
  41. Fed. Cir. · June 11, 2026In re Ecto World LLCThe Federal Circuit denied mandamus because Ecto World did not show a clear and indisputable right to an order directing the ITC to terminate or stay its ongoing Section 337 investigation. Ecto World did not show that a jurisdictional…
  42. Fed. Cir. · June 9, 2026ATLAS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. LIANZHOU TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court without opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no reasoning or issue-specific holding.
  43. Fed. Cir. · June 5, 2026Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the '802 patent, upholding the district court's constructions of "composition" and "administering" and rejecting Nexus's written-description challenge. Because the '802 and '105 patents…
  44. Fed. Cir. · June 4, 2026Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULCThe Federal Circuit vacated the infringement and damages judgments because the verdict form used a single infringement question for all asserted patents, creating an impermissible risk of a non-unanimous verdict. It also vacated and…
  45. Fed. Cir. · June 2, 2026AGI SureTrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because they are directed to collecting, interpreting, and transmitting farming-operation data using generic computer components, with no inventive concept. The…
  46. Fed. Cir. · May 28, 2026Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd.The Federal Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction because the nominally without-prejudice dismissal of Insulet's patent claims functioned at least in part as a dismissal with prejudice once limitations had run on alleged 2018…
  47. Fed. Cir. · May 22, 2026Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor CompanyThe Federal Circuit held that the district court legally erred by categorically precluding Versata from seeking unjust enrichment damages under the DTSA and MUTSA, which expressly authorize such recovery, and vacated the trade secret…
  48. Fed. Cir. · May 15, 2026mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of FloridaThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice because mCom showed no error in the district court's obviousness-based invalidity ruling on claim 17. It reversed the § 285 fee award and the § 1927 sanction against…
  49. Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Finelite, Inc.Applying California law de novo, the Federal Circuit held that the parties' 2012 Agreement unambiguously incorporates the entire Contract of Sale, including its jurisdiction-limited indemnification clause, rather than only the…
  50. Fed. Cir. · May 11, 2026Extremity Medical, LLC v. Nextremity Solutions, Inc.Under Dragon, § 285 does not allow recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred in a voluntarily undertaken parallel IPR, so the district court correctly denied Nextremity's $343,660.86 IPR fee request. The court also held that the…
  51. Fed. Cir. · May 6, 2026Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's § 285 exceptional-case finding and attorney fee award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion where the record showed plaintiff failed to conduct any meaningful…
  52. Fed. Cir. · May 6, 2026Starlight Entertainment Enterprises, Inc. v. Central District of CaliforniaThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and untimeliness, and issued an order to show cause why sanctions—including an anti-filing injunction—should not be imposed, given Calderon Lopez's repeated…
  53. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 28, 2026Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.The Federal Circuit held the "optimization" claims (claims 17, 21, 24, 28 of the '761 patent and claim 5 of the '700 patent) ineligible under § 101 as result-oriented claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for…
  54. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 24, 2026TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas on all three issues. Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that claim 14 of the '008 patent was not infringed, the "flag signal" construction for the '835 patent was…
  55. PTAB · Dec. 22, 2022Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCWhen a petitioner has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of process under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a)(6), such as filing an IPR for the purpose of extracting payment, or has committed other sanctionable misconduct, the Director (and by…
  56. PTAB · Oct. 4, 2022OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCWhen a petitioner uses an IPR for the primary purpose of extracting payment, is willing to forgo or sabotage the adversarial process, and fails to meaningfully pursue the patentability merits, that conduct is an abuse of process…
  57. PTAB · Jan. 19, 2018Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner moves under 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a) to seal exhibits in an inter partes review, the Board will find "good cause" only if the movant adequately shows…
  58. PTAB · July 23, 2013Dung v. BuehlerInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party in an interference seeks leave to file belatedly newly discovered evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 41.4(a)(2), it shows "excusable neglect" only by…
  59. PTAB · Apr. 25, 2007Ashurst v. BruggerInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party seeks additional discovery under Bd.R. 150(c)(1), it must show the discovery is "in the interests of justice," a high standard requiring specific bases…
  60. PTAB · Oct. 29, 2003Schaenzer v. KnightInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When all parties to an interference settle and jointly move for relief such as designating claims as not corresponding to the count, the Board treats the motion like…
  61. PTAB · Apr. 23, 2002LeVeen v. EdwardsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an APJ has ordered that a party's principal brief at final hearing refer only to arguments and facts presented in its original motion (read to include the…
  62. PTAB · Jan. 1, 2002LeVeen v. EdwardsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party seeks review at final hearing of an interlocutory decision, it may not change the thrust of the arguments it made to the administrative patent judge, and…
  63. PTAB · Nov. 6, 2001Sever v. GlickmanInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a junior party applicant whose showing under Rule 608(b) was found insufficient responds to a Rule 617(a) order to show cause, it must prove by clear and…
  64. PTAB · Dec. 8, 2000LeVeen v. EdwardsWhen a party's interference preliminary motion for judgment under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) fails to follow the procedures in the Notice Declaring Interference (no incorporation of arguments by reference, facts set out in the motion,…
  65. PTAB · Sept. 7, 2000Shiokawa v. MaienfischWhen a party seeks additional discovery under 37 CFR § 1.687(c) in an interference, the Board will not find it to be in the interest of justice if the party supplies no evidence (or fails to point to the relevant part of the evidence)…
  66. PTAB · Dec. 2, 1998A.S. v. B.R.When a practitioner in an interference communicates with an administrative patent judge or Board administrator on the merits, or on procedure affecting the merits, or to change the status quo of the interference, without service on or…

Other topics