Patent Law University

169 decisions · Courts and the ITC

Standing and Jurisdiction in Patent Cases

Decisions on who may bring or appeal a patent case (patent ownership, exclusive licenses, and the injury a party needs to appeal a PTAB decision) and on which court or agency may hear it.

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

  1. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 8, 2026Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. v. Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaOn 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.
  2. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  3. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026In re Google LLCThe 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,…
  4. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P.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…
  5. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 2, 2026Nomad Goods, Inc. v. Nomad Grill LLCThe 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.
  6. 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…
  7. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026In re Satius Holding, Inc.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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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…
  10. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.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.
  11. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 23, 2026LED Wafer Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.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.
  12. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026Heidary v. Amazon.com Inc.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…
  13. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026BROWN v. ABNEYThe 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…
  14. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 18, 2026SF Diamond Co., Ltd. v. ITCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side bears its own costs.
  15. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 15, 2026Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side must bear its own costs.
  16. 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…
  17. 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…
  18. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 10, 2026In re TextNow Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side bears its own costs.
  19. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 10, 2026Guymon v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint was filed two days late because a pro se litigant's emailed complaint was not a permissible filing method under the Federal Rules and the district court's local procedures. The…
  20. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 9, 2026LATTICE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. BH SECURITY LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side must bear its own costs.
  21. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 8, 2026Asafi v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute after the appellant did not timely file the required brief. The court did not reach any patent-law merits issue.
  22. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 4, 2026WIRELESSWERX IP, LLC v. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by party agreement under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  23. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 4, 2026JETBLACK CYCLING PTY LTD. v. WAHOO FITNESS L.L.C.The Federal Circuit granted the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. Each side must bear its own costs.
  24. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 4, 2026INARI MEDICAL, INC. v. IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the agreed appeals under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  25. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 1, 2026Gurvey v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit dismissed the notice of appeal for failure to prosecute after the appellant did not timely file the required brief.
  26. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 31, 2026Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that the asserted claims of the '439, '440, and '015 patents had adequate written description under § 112(a). The court dismissed as moot MSN's appeal as to claim 3 of the '349 patent and vacated…
  27. 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…
  28. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding both improper venue and § 101 eligibility grounds in the same dismissal order. The court also declined to opine on the preclusive…
  29. 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…
  30. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 26, 2026Welytok v. Director of the USPTOThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute after the appellant did not file the required brief on time. The order does not address any patent-law merits issue.
  31. 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…
  32. 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…
  33. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 19, 2026In re Printify, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to the parties’ Rule 42(b) stipulation. Each side must bear its own costs.
  34. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 12, 2026Canadian Solar, Inc. v. Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot because Maxeon’s unilateral covenant not to sue eliminated the live controversy. Because mootness resulted from the unilateral action of the party that prevailed before the Board, the court…
  35. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 11, 2026Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. International Trade CommissionThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  36. PTAB · Aug. 6, 2026Ex parte BaurinWhen an examiner rejects claims for obviousness-type double patenting over a reference patent that has a later patent term filing date and later expiration, and the claims on appeal are admittedly obvious variants of the reference claims,…
  37. 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,…
  38. Fed. Cir. · July 31, 2026RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit granted the motion to the extent it dismissed the appeal. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs.
  39. Fed. Cir. · July 31, 2026National Products, Inc. v. DoveyThe Federal Circuit granted the unopposed Rule 42(b) motion and dismissed the appeal. Each party will bear its own costs.
  40. Fed. Cir. · July 31, 2026RJ Technology LLC v. Apple Inc.The Federal Circuit granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. Each party will bear its own costs.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.…
  43. Fed. Cir. · July 27, 2026Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCThe Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Each party will bear its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate.
  44. Fed. Cir. · July 27, 2026KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. NATURASOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLCThe 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…
  45. Fed. Cir. · July 23, 2026CARTESSA AESTHETICS, LLC v. ITCThe Federal Circuit held that the appeals were moot because the asserted patent had expired and the ITC can provide only prospective relief. Potential indirect effects of the ITC determination in PTO proceedings did not preserve a live…
  46. Fed. Cir. · July 23, 2026YONGQIANG v. FOX FACTORY, INC.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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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…
  49. Fed. Cir. · July 21, 2026MAXEON SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. CANADIAN SOLAR, INC.The Federal Circuit granted Maxeon’s unopposed motion to the extent it deconsolidated the two appeals and dismissed Appeal No. 2026-1500, with each party bearing its own costs. The court left Appeal No. 2026-1525 pending and set the…
  50. Fed. Cir. · July 20, 2026Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side bears its own costs.
  51. Fed. Cir. · July 14, 2026ASCLETIS PHARMA INC. v. ITCThe Federal Circuit granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss Viking’s cross-appeal. The court deconsolidated and dismissed Appeal No. 2025-2162, taxed costs against Viking, and left Ascletis’s appeal, No. 2025-2164, to proceed.
  52. ITC · July 14, 2026Certain TOPCon Solar Cells, Modules, Panels, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1494 (Violation)This supplemental complaint submission replaces Exhibit No. 4 with a USPTO-certified recorded Patent Security Agreement concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074, apparently to support First Solar, Inc.’s standing/ownership record in the…
  53. Fed. Cir. · July 13, 2026Tramec Sloan LLC v. SurtiThe Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because denial of a motion to dismiss or transfer is interlocutory and not a final decision. The court also found no § 1292(b) certification and no basis to treat the appeal…
  54. ITC · July 10, 2026Certain Melanoma Predictive and Prognostic Tests and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-3921 (Violation)Castle Biosciences filed a non-patent Section 337 complaint against SkylineDx Holding B.V., SkylineDx USA, Qiagen GmbH, and Qiagen LLC alleging Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition involving SkylineDx’s imported Merlin…
  55. Fed. Cir. · July 8, 2026Swift Paws, Inc. v. Zhende TechThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) by agreement of the parties and ordered each side to bear its own costs. The order contains no merits ruling on any patent issue.
  56. Fed. Cir. · July 8, 2026AUTOSCRIBE CORP. v. M&A VENTURES, LLCThe 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.
  57. Fed. Cir. · July 7, 2026HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP. v. MAXEON SOLAR PTE. LTD.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.
  58. Fed. Cir. · July 6, 2026LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC.The Federal Circuit held that the settlement and license ended the Article III controversy between Linfo and Trustpilot. Trustpilot’s reserved right to participate in the appeal did not preserve jurisdiction because Trustpilot no longer…
  59. Fed. Cir. · July 1, 2026In re Marini y Compañía, S.A.The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the MON AMI marks were similar to AMÌ under DuPont factor one. The court rejected challenges based on the accent mark in AMÌ and the…
  60. Fed. Cir. · July 1, 2026RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. ITCThe 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.
  61. Fed. Cir. · June 30, 2026General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  62. 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…
  63. 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.
  64. 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…
  65. Fed. Cir. · June 26, 2026POWER2B, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.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.
  66. Fed. Cir. · June 25, 2026GOTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  67. 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.…
  68. Fed. Cir. · June 22, 2026CLEAR IMAGING RESEARCH LLC v. GOOGLE LLCThe 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.
  69. Fed. Cir. · June 22, 2026VIA Transportation, Inc. v. RideCo Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal by agreement under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  70. ITC · June 16, 2026Certain Foundry CokeSunCoke Technology and Development LLC and Jewell Coke Company L.P. filed a Section 337 complaint targeting imports and post-importation sales of certain foundry coke by Czech, German, Polish, and Italian respondents. The Federal Register…
  71. Fed. Cir. · June 15, 2026Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.The Federal Circuit deconsolidated the appeals and dismissed Appeal No. 2026-1110 by stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs. The court also granted the realignment motion in Appeal No. 2026-1596 to the extent reflected in the…
  72. Fed. Cir. · June 15, 20263S Americas Inc. v. Cooper New Energy Co. Ltd.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.
  73. Fed. Cir. · June 12, 2026FORAS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLCThe 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.
  74. 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…
  75. 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…
  76. Fed. Cir. · June 5, 2026Hafeman v. Google LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the patent owner's Sotera-stipulation challenge as barred by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) because it sought termination for reasons tied to institution. The court otherwise affirmed the Board's obviousness…
  77. Fed. Cir. · June 1, 2026ZHANG v. PARTIES IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE AThe 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.
  78. ITC · June 1, 2026Certain Vehicle Space Guards; Inv. No. 337-TA-3912 (Violation)Jonathan Black Kotyk filed a Section 337 complaint against Drop Stop, LLC, Walmart, The Container Store, 232 Technologies Inc., and Sporty’s, alleging that imported vehicle space guard products, including the Drop Stop Seat Gap Filler,…
  79. Fed. Cir. · May 29, 2026Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor CorporationThe 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.
  80. Fed. Cir. · May 28, 2026PANTECH CORPORATION v. ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  81. ITC · May 28, 2026Certain NAND and DRAM Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-3908 (Violation)MonolithIC 3D Inc. filed a Section 337 complaint against as-yet unidentified/proposed respondents alleging infringement of unspecified asserted patents by imported NAND and DRAM memory chips and products containing them. The accused…
  82. 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…
  83. Fed. Cir. · May 22, 2026Arsenis v. United States TrusteeThe Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction over appeals originating from bankruptcy court decisions and transferred the case to the Third Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Arsenis failed to demonstrate any basis for Federal Circuit jurisdiction.
  84. ITC · May 22, 2026Certain Vehicle Parts and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1491 (Violation)General Motors LLC and GM Global Technology Operations LLC have filed a Section 337 complaint at the USITC against unknown respondents alleging infringement of patents covering certain vehicle parts and components, seeking to block…
  85. 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…
  86. ITC · May 21, 2026Certain Energy Drinks and Labeling and Packaging Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-3902 (Violation)Monster Energy Company filed a Section 337 complaint at the USITC against multiple respondents, including Gig Wholesale Corp. and Asialink NZ Limited, alleging trademark infringement arising from the importation and sale of unauthorized…
  87. Fed. Cir. · May 20, 2026Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b), with each party bearing its own costs. The court declined to characterize the dismissal as with or without prejudice, consistent with…
  88. Fed. Cir. · May 19, 2026Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co.A patent owner that retains a secondary right to sue, royalty interests, and veto authority over sublicenses under an exclusive license agreement retains a non-illusory exclusionary right sufficient to satisfy the Article III…
  89. Fed. Cir. · May 19, 2026A.L.M. Holding Company v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd.A patent owner that retains a right to sue, a sublicensing veto (with pass-through royalties), and royalty interests retains a non-illusory exclusionary right sufficient for Article III constitutional standing, even after granting an…
  90. Fed. Cir. · May 18, 2026Vidstream LLC v. Twitter, Inc.On the parties' agreement, the court dismissed cross-appeal No. 2026-1287 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs for that appeal. It also revised the official caption for the remaining appeal, No. 2026-1271. No…
  91. Fed. Cir. · May 15, 2026Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHz, LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal from the PTAB's decision in IPR2023-01003 on the parties' joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Each side bears its own costs,…
  92. Fed. Cir. · May 14, 2026Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed Spero's appeals from six IPR final written decisions as moot. It had affirmed the Board's unpatentability determinations for the appealed claims of the '503 patent in a companion appeal, Spero v.…
  93. Fed. Cir. · May 14, 2026Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed Spero's appeal from the Board's final written decision holding claims 1–8, 10–19, 21–30, and 32–33 of the '029 patent unpatentable as moot. It did so because it affirmed the Board's unpatentability…
  94. Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board's construction of "the provisioned codeset record comprising protocol and formatting information." The construction does not require all protocol and formatting information to be stored in the…
  95. Fed. Cir. · May 12, 2026Nesarikar v. PTOThe Federal Circuit held that the pro se inventors failed to adequately allege Article III injury because their own filings said they were obligated to assign the '288 application, and their conclusory assertions of current ownership were…
  96. 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…
  97. Fed. Cir. · May 5, 2026Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc.The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to remand so the district court can act on its indicative ruling, but expressly took no position on whether vacatur of the final judgment is appropriate under Bancorp. Each side bears its own…
  98. Fed. Cir. · May 5, 2026Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by stipulation of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Each side bears its own costs.
  99. Fed. Cir. · May 4, 2026Calderon Lopez v. State of CaliforniaThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as clearly untimely and frivolous, noting it is identical to a prior appeal the court already dismissed as untimely. Each party bears its own costs.
  100. Fed. Cir. · May 4, 2026In re BadgeCert, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by stipulation of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The mandate issued simultaneously.
  101. Fed. Cir. · May 1, 2026Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHz, LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal by stipulation of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.
  102. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 30, 2026Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts, LLPThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as clearly frivolous without resolving whether jurisdiction lay in the Federal Circuit or the Second Circuit, because appellant failed to make any cogent, non-frivolous argument for relief under…
  103. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 30, 2026Kamdem-Ouaffo v. LeblonThe Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction because the appeal does not arise under the patent laws or any other basis conferring Federal Circuit jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. The matter is transferred to the Third Circuit pursuant to…
  104. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on the parties' agreement, with each side bearing its own costs. The order does not address the merits.
  105. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe Federal Circuit held that "programming change" in claim 7 of the '033 patent requires a change in function, so the Board's broader construction was wrong. Because substantial evidence did not support the Board's alternative finding…
  106. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe court held that FedEx's challenges based on 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) (real-party-in-interest), including the Board's refusal to decide the issue and its denial of the motion to terminate, are unreviewable under § 314(d). It vacated the…
  107. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 27, 2026SITNET LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from the PTAB's decision in IPR2024-00530 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on the parties' agreement. Each side bears its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate. The court decided no merits…
  108. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal No. 24-1916 (Roku's cross-appeal) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) based on the parties' stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs. Appeal No. 24-1856 (Universal Electronics' appeal) is…
  109. PTAB · Mar. 18, 2026Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd.A foreign government is not a "person" under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) (and § 321(a)), so under Return Mail it cannot be a petitioner in an AIA proceeding, and the bar also applies when a foreign government is a real party in interest of a…
  110. PTAB · Jan. 15, 2026Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner produces some evidence that tends to show a particular third party should be named a real party in interest, the petitioner bears the burden to…
  111. 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…
  112. PTAB · Jan. 14, 2022Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLCWhen a petitioner pays the inter partes review fee by Fedwire transfer, following the USPTO's published wire instructions, a Fedwire confirmation of payment is sufficient evidence that the fee "accompanied" the petition under 35 U.S.C. §…
  113. PTAB · Oct. 2, 2020RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLCWhen a membership organization that sells defensive patent aggregation and files IPRs for the benefit of its members files a petition against patents asserted against a member who is itself time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), and the…
  114. PTAB · Jan. 31, 2020Ex parte Grillo-LópezIn ex parte examination, where the examiner shows that a reference was made sufficiently accessible to interested persons ordinarily skilled in the art, the Board may find a prima facie case that the reference is a "printed publication"…
  115. PTAB · Aug. 23, 2019GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc.When a party is served, in a manner prescribed by law, with a pleading (complaint or counterclaim) asserting a claim alleging infringement of the patent, the one-year period in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) begins on the date of service, and the…
  116. PTAB · July 26, 2019Sattler Tech Corp. v. Humancentric Ventures, LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. A design patent claim may be challenged in post-grant review under 35 U.S.C. § 171 as lacking ornamentality, and the Board will institute under § 324(a) when the…
  117. PTAB · June 14, 2019DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLCWhen a written agreement between the patent owner and a petitioner made in connection with, or in contemplation of, termination of an IPR refers to other agreements, 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) requires that those referenced collateral agreements…
  118. PTAB · Jan. 24, 2019Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc.When a petitioner files an IPR petition more than one year after a non-party was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent, and the petitioner cannot show the non-party is neither a real party in interest nor a privy,…
  119. PTAB · Oct. 1, 2018Infiltrator Water Techs., LLC, v. Presby Patent TrustWhen a petitioner was served, including by waiver of service, with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the petition was filed, the Board cannot maintain an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §…
  120. PTAB · Feb. 27, 2018Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a patent claim before filing its petition, and that action has not been dismissed, 35 U.S.C. §…
  121. PTAB · Sept. 28, 2017Facebook, Inc. v. Skky, LLCWhen a patent owner files a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) after the petition is filed but before the institution decision, the Board cannot apply a "time-of-filing" rule to CBM patent review…
  122. PTAB · Sept. 18, 2017Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinleyInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner's attempted deposit-account payment of the IPR filing fee fails because the account held insufficient funds, and the petitioner shows no good cause…
  123. PTAB · July 6, 2017General Electric Co. v. United Techs. Corp.When a patent owner files a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) of all challenged claims that meets 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) and is recorded in the Office before institution, the Board cannot institute inter partes review, because…
  124. PTAB · June 20, 2017Curt G. Joa, Inc. v. Fameccanica.data S.P.A.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Because an oral hearing is open to the public and confidential information is not to be discussed in open session, the Board may, on a party's request and in view of…
  125. PTAB · Mar. 4, 2016Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.When a patent owner argues that a petition failed to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) because the real party in interest changed after filing, the Board will treat § 312(a) ("may be considered only if") as a nonjurisdictional…
  126. PTAB · Sept. 17, 2015LG Elecs., Inc. v. Mondis Tech. Ltd.When a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than one year before the petition was filed, the Board cannot institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), even though a later complaint on…
  127. PTAB · Aug. 18, 2015Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.When a petition for inter partes review fails to identify all real parties in interest, the Board cannot consider it, because 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) permits consideration "only if . . . the petition identifies all real parties in…
  128. PTAB · May 14, 2015Westlake Servs., LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp.When a covered business method patent review results in a final written decision addressing only the claims on which trial was instituted, estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(1) applies on a claim-by-claim basis,…
  129. PTAB · June 27, 2014TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner serves a motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the proposed complaint attached, and the court has not yet granted leave, the…
  130. PTAB · Oct. 25, 2013Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.When a patent owner argues in a preliminary response that the petitioner is barred by assignor estoppel because a named inventor is in privity with the petitioner, the Board cannot deny the petition on that basis. Section 311(a) provides…
  131. PTAB · May 29, 2013Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty LtdWhen a party moves for additional discovery in a covered business method patent review, the Board applies the good cause standard of 37 C.F.R. § 42.224 (requests "may be granted upon a showing of good cause as to why the discovery is…
  132. PTAB · Apr. 24, 2013Thomas v. PippinInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party in a declared interference files a request to convert its involved application to a SIR (35 U.S.C. § 157; 37 CFR § 1.293) as an exhibit to a motion, and…
  133. PTAB · Mar. 6, 2013Thomas v. PippinInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party appeals a final Board interference judgment to the Federal Circuit, the Board retains authority under Loshbough v. Allen to perform purely ministerial…
  134. PTAB · Jan. 30, 2013Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael ArnouseInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent owner has filed an infringement complaint but has not served the accused infringer with a summons, the one-year period of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (a petition…
  135. PTAB · May 21, 2012Ex parte BoerInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an applicant appeals a rejection and challenges the examiner's determination that a 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 declaration of prior invention is insufficient, the Board…
  136. PTAB · Feb. 24, 2012Panduit Corp. v. ADC TelecommsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a requester in an inter partes reexamination does not timely propose a rejection of claims the patent owner added by amendment, and the examiner therefore does…
  137. PTAB · May 3, 2011Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Patent of Dexcom, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an examiner in an inter partes reexamination determines that a proposed rejection based on a particular reference does not raise a substantial new question of…
  138. PTAB · Mar. 30, 2011Belkin Int’l, Inc. v. OptimumPath, LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the Director (or, on petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.927, the Director's decision) determines that no substantial new question of patentability is raised for…
  139. PTAB · Oct. 29, 2010California Institute of Technology v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a judgment has been entered in an interference and an involved file is open to the public under 37 C.F.R. § 1.11 (here, an involved issued patent), Board Rule…
  140. PTAB · Feb. 26, 2010Ex parte FryeWhen an appellant contests only particular findings or issues in an examiner's rejection, the Board reviews those contested findings anew for error in light of all the evidence and argument on that issue, but filing an appeal does not…
  141. PTAB · June 5, 2009Amgen, Inc. v. Human Genome Sciences, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an interference party's utility-based unpatentability motion has been granted and the Board has entered judgment, the Board may, in its case-specific discretion,…
  142. PTAB · Mar. 23, 2009Rodriguez Rilo v BenedictInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a senior party suggests that a junior-party applicant's Bd.R. 202 statement fails to show interfering subject matter, an administrative patent judge need not…
  143. PTAB · Feb. 6, 2009Barany v. McGallInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When all of a senior-party patentee's claims have been held unpatentable but the junior-party applicant has not yet proven it invented the count's subject matter…
  144. PTAB · Jan. 31, 2008Ex parte LettsWhen an appellant in an ex parte appeal offers to cancel a claim only on condition that the Board take or refrain from taking action on other claims, the offer is ineffective and the claim remains in the appeal. The Board does not enter…
  145. PTAB · Mar. 6, 2007Rowells v. VichinskyInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a junior party responding to a Bd.R. 202(d) order to show cause relies on derivation, it must show by a preponderance of the evidence conception plus a…
  146. PTAB · Dec. 19, 2005Ex parte ShawInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the Board has entered a merits decision in an interference and the applicant's 35 U.S.C. § 146 civil action seeking review was dismissed (the time for appeal…
  147. PTAB · Nov. 19, 2004Kaufman v. TaliehInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a settlement agreement filed with a joint request to terminate an interference contains a paragraph in which the junior party concedes priority to the senior…
  148. PTAB · Apr. 10, 2003Herman v. BarnesInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party in an interference over inventorship of a patent (the party who claims to be sole inventor) seeks judgment that the patent names the wrong inventors, it…
  149. PTAB · Mar. 28, 2003Wertz v. RoseInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Where the parties agree to arbitrate an interference under 37 CFR § 1.690 and agree that the arbitrator's decisions are binding and that the Board may enter judgment…
  150. PTAB · Jan. 1, 2003Sullivan v. BingelInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party concedes priority and judgment is entered against all of its claims in an interference, leaving only patentability questions that have not been fully…
  151. PTAB · June 10, 2002Strelchenko v. CampbellInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) to hold an opponent's claims barred under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) by reference to a patent that is not involved in the…
  152. PTAB · Apr. 2, 2002University of New Mexico v. Fordham UniversityInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Where a party seeks disqualification of opposing counsel in an interference based on a current-client conflict, the Board does not apply a per se or strict-liability…
  153. PTAB · Mar. 26, 2002Han v. LivakInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a), which says the Board "may determine questions of patentability," the Board may decline to decide a fairly raised patentability motion, here…
  154. PTAB · Nov. 20, 2001Ellsworth v. MooreInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an inventor who earlier signed a declaration naming a joint inventor later claims sole inventorship in an interference and bears the burden by a preponderance of…
  155. 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…
  156. PTAB · July 24, 2001Ondeyka v. ShelleyInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a patent named in a declared interference had expired (here for non-payment of maintenance fees) before the interference was declared, the Board lacks subject…
  157. PTAB · May 11, 2001Anderson v. EppsteinInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 32 and 37 CFR § 10.130(b) to disqualify opposing counsel in an interference based on a former representation, the movant…
  158. PTAB · Jan. 9, 2001Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg.When adding a patent to a pending interference would result in a patent versus patent conflict, the Board lacks jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) to add it, even if one party also has an involved application claiming the same…
  159. PTAB · Oct. 18, 2000Glaxco Wellcome, Inc. v. CabillyWhen a party seeks additional discovery to support a preliminary motion for judgment of unpatentability, and the discovery targets an examiner's ex parte allowance rationale (a declaration relied on in prosecution and examiner interviews)…
  160. PTAB · Apr. 25, 2000Hillman v. ShyamalaWhen a party moves for benefit of an earlier application in an interference, the movant bears the burden of proof under 37 CFR § 1.637(a) and must include in the motion a full statement of the reasons why the relief should be granted;…
  161. PTAB · Feb. 22, 2000Waterman v. BirbaumWhen a pending application was expressly abandoned before the interference was declared, the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction because 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) does not authorize an interference between an abandoned application and an…
  162. PTAB · Nov. 23, 1999Therriault v. GarbeWhen a junior party in an interference needs testimony or documents from a non-party who will not appear without a subpoena, and the parties would be prejudiced by the usual order of presenting the case-in-chief, the Board may authorize a…
  163. PTAB · Nov. 10, 1999Housey v. BermanWhen deciding whether an applicant had, before the one-year critical date, a claim to "the same or substantially the same subject matter" as a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b), the Board must not apply the obviousness standard of 35…
  164. PTAB · Nov. 1, 1999Davis v. HendronWhen an interference is declared between an application and a patent and a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.635 to add under 37 CFR § 1.642 a further patent such that the Board would lack jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 135(a) to resolve…
  165. PTAB · Apr. 26, 1999B.M. v. H.G.When counsel stipulate different times for taking action in the Trial Section's preliminary motion phase, the stipulation cannot extend TIME PERIODS 1 through 6 beyond TIME PERIOD 7 or TIME PERIOD 8, and counsel cannot stipulate any…
  166. PTAB · Apr. 13, 1999Wolf v. TomaliaWhen a patent involved in an interference is also the subject of a pending ex parte reexamination, the Board will not stay the interference, fold the reexamination into it, or let the opposing party contest the reexamined claims inter…
  167. PTAB · Feb. 24, 1999Griggs v. RoseWhen the examiner has already determined, before declaration, that an involved application claim is unpatentable (here under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description) and that determination has not been overcome…
  168. PTAB · Aug. 13, 1997Basmadjian v. LandryWhen an applicant's Rule 608(b) showing is reviewed in an interference summary judgment proceeding under 37 CFR § 1.617, the applicant must establish a prima facie case, meaning facts shown by a preponderance of the evidence (clear and…
  169. PTAB · Dec. 27, 1994Ex parte Lemoine , 94-0216 (December 27, 1994) [jurisdiction for appeal]When an applicant has had a claim for a patent rejected twice, even if the rejections issued in a parent application and its file wrapper continuation and the claims were reworded between them, the Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §…

Other topics