Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Intellectual Property

  • April 17, 2026

    3rd Circuit: Janssen Didn’t Show Irreparable Harm From Patent Settlement Breach

    PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a New Jersey federal judge’s denial of a preliminary injunction requested by appellants Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech Inc., agreeing that the appellants had failed to show irreparable harm caused through Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. by an alleged breach of the settlement in an earlier patent dispute.

  • April 17, 2026

    Judge Wrongly Granted JMOL In Antibody Patent Row After Verdict, Panel Finds

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 16 reversed a Massachusetts federal judge’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity on patents held by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and its American affiliate for lack of written description and enablement; the panel found that a reasonable jury could have found that the invention involved a well-known class of antibodies, rather than a novel genus.

  • April 16, 2026

    Federal Circuit Says Tech Company Established Patent Claims’ Territoriality

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a California federal judge’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Intel Corp., holding that a stipulation between Intel and the patent holder establishes a U.S. nexus, contrary to the judge’s finding of extraterritoriality.

  • April 16, 2026

    Source Code In Patent Case Not Hearsay, Federal Circuit Panel Agrees

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Utah federal judge’s finding that certain claims of a patent describing a system of programming vehicle controllers were invalid in view of a prior art reference that was on sale before the claimed device’s “critical date”; the panel rejected the appellant’s argument that the judge relied on inadmissible evidence in reaching the decision.

  • April 16, 2026

    Federal Circuit Finds Company Lacked Standing To Appeal Amendment Of Patent

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appellant technology company failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of injury in fact based on the risk of future litigation stemming from substitute patent claims, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, dismissing the company’s appeal that challenged a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision to allow amendment of the patent.

  • April 15, 2026

    Petitioner Cites Cox In Reply Brief In High Court ‘Skinny Label’ Patent Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petitioner bioequivalent pharmaceutical maker that is arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that a patent holder’s complaint failed to state a claim for induced infringement because the “skinny label” generic version of the patent carved out the patented cardiovascular use of the drug is pointing to a recent high court ruling that cleared an internet service provider of vicarious liability for copyright infringement on the part of its customers.

  • April 14, 2026

    PTAB’s Invalidation Of Voice Command Patent Affirmed By Federal Circuit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a win for Roku Inc. in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings the company sought, rejecting an appellant technology company’s argument that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) adopted a theory introduced by Roku for the first time in a reply brief.

  • April 13, 2026

    Judge Chastises Proud Boys’ Head’s Lawyer After Default In Trademark Row

    NEW YORK — A New York federal judge had harsh words for the head of a New York area chapter of the Proud Boys extremist group who filed a response to a trademark infringement complaint filed against the group by a historic Black church in Washington, D.C., while a default judgment hearing was occurring before the court; the judge said the “Court balks at the suggestion that this level of disregard stemmed from an ‘inadvertent[]’ ‘calendaring error.’”

  • April 10, 2026

    Federal Circuit Agrees With PTAB: Manual Is Anticipating Prior Art Reference

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not improperly conclude that a user guide for a web security system is a publicly accessible prior art reference, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held; the panel also affirmed PTAB’s finding that the user guide thus anticipates all claims of a patent describing a decryption system.

  • April 10, 2026

    3rd Circuit: Copying Of Building Codes Likely Fair Use

    PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel agreed with a Pennsylvania federal judge that an online research platform was likely to succeed on its fair use defense against claims accusing it of infringing copyrighted building codes that have been incorporated into the International Building Code; the panel pointed to a 2023 opinion by the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appealsinvolving the same plaintiff-appellant that similarly found fair use.

  • April 10, 2026

    TTAB Rejection Of Cigar Maker’s Mark Challenge Affirmed By Federal Circuit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) had substantial evidence to support its rejection of a Dominican Republic tobacco company’s challenge to a CBD vape manufacturer’s application for a trademark on a stick-figure logo with limbs splayed out in the shape of the letter X, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed.

  • April 10, 2026

    Judge Finds Mobile Game Patent Claims Invalid As Abstract, Tosses Suit

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware granted a motion for a judgment on the pleadings from the maker of massively successful mobile phone video games like Pokémon GO, agreeing with the company that a patent asserted against the game studio was invalid for being directed at the abstract concept of determining a player’s location.

  • April 09, 2026

    Judge Finds Trademark Default ‘Exceptional’ For Purpose Of Attorney Fees

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware federal judge held that a defaulting defendant engineering entity owes more than $30,000 in attorney fees because a plaintiff information technology (IT) company that brought trademark infringement claims had managed to illustrate the “exceptional” nature of the case.

  • April 08, 2026

    Federal Circuit: ITC’s Claim Construction Rightly Led To Anticipation Finding

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly denied relief to an air conditioning patent holder that claimed that certain products imported into the United States infringed its patents; the panel affirmed findings that certain claims of the patent were invalid as anticipated, while the remaining claims required elements that the accused products lacked.

  • April 07, 2026

    Nvidia, Authors Debate Contributory Infringement After Supreme Court Ruling

    OAKLAND, Calif. — Nvidia Corp. and authors squared off in supplemental briefing over the impact a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has on contributory infringement claims involving the training of artificial intelligence.

  • April 07, 2026

    9th Circuit Agrees: ‘Foxy Lady’ Marks Not Sufficiently Similar For Infringement

    LAS VEGAS — A federal judge in Washington did not clearly err when finding that an exotic dance bar could not show that a “bikini barista” coffee shop’s use of marks containing the phrase “Foxy Lady” was sufficiently similar to the bar’s own marks containing the phrase, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, affirming the judge’s denial of the bar’s request for default judgment and the subsequent dismissal.

  • April 07, 2026

    Patent Invalid For Failing To Name Unreachable Inventor, Appeals Court Agrees

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it described as a matter of first impression, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Indiana federal judge’s findings that a fencing manufacturer could not correct a patent to add the name of an undisputed co-inventor who could not be contacted because the co-inventor was a “party concerned” for correction proceedings; the panel also agreed that the patents were invalid for omitting the co-inventor.

  • April 06, 2026

    Supreme Court Grants ISP’s Cert Request, Vacates 5th Circuit Ruling In Wake Of Cox

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 6 granted an internet service provider’s (ISP) petition for a writ of certiorari and then immediately vacated a ruling by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that held that the ISP was vicariously liable for copyright infringement through its internet customers’ behavior.  The high court pointed to its recent opinion that reversed a similar ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals against a different ISP.

  • April 06, 2026

    8th Circuit Affirms Fees Against Plaintiff Firm In Floor Plan Fair Use Case

    ST. LOUIS — An Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Missouri federal judge’s holding that a design company owed two real estate agents and affiliated entities a combined total of more than $230,000 in attorney fees, noting the lack of evidentiary support for many of the design company’s claims that the realtors had infringed copyrighted floor plans in resale listings.

  • April 03, 2026

    Federal Circuit: PTAB Partly Erred In Consideration Of Tesla-Led IPR

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly construed some claims but correctly construed others during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Tesla Inc. regarding a patent describing electric vehicle charging systems, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, leading the panel to affirm some of PTAB’s findings but vacate and reverse others.

  • April 03, 2026

    Partly Split 4th Circuit Agrees Earlier Settlement Bars Trademark Claims

    RICHMOND, Va. — A partly split Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a South Carolina federal magistrate judge’s finding that a plaintiff technology company’s federal trademark claims, filed only weeks after the settlement of state breach of contract claims, were barred by res judicata due to the “wide scope of the settlement agreement” in a dispute over marks containing the word “touch.”

  • April 02, 2026

    Patent Applicant Explicitly Disclaimed Prior Art Reference, Federal Circuit Agrees

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge rightly granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of defendant-appellee entities accused of infringing a patent describing air purifying technology because the patent applicant explicitly narrowed the scope of patent claims during prosecution history to exclude the type of reflective surfaces present in the accused devices, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 1.

  • April 02, 2026

    Judge Denies NCAA TRO Request For Trademark Claims Against DraftKings

    INDIANAPOLIS — A federal judge in Indiana denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining DraftKings Inc. from using a series of marks related to the annual “March Madness” basketball tournament, holding that while the NCAA had established likelihood of confusion regarding DraftKings’ use of the marks, it had failed to show the likelihood of irreparable reputational harm.

  • April 01, 2026

    Appellee, Amicus: Rehearing Needed To Pin Down Patent Witness Rules

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amicus curiae public interest law firm argues in its March 31 brief that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant a petition for rehearing en banc by DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities, echoing DePuy’s claims that a split panel’s decision to reverse a Pennsylvania federal court’s exclusion of two expert witnesses’ testimony on induced infringement constitutes a departure from recent Federal Circuit en banc precedent.

  • April 01, 2026

    Personalized Ads Patent Claim Invalid As Abstract, Appeals Court Agrees

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on March 31 held that a California federal judge correctly ruled that the asserted claim of a technology company that accused TikTok Inc. and related entities of infringement was invalid as abstract for lack of details on how to implement the claim; the panel agreed that the asserted claim does no more than describe the abstract concept of personalizing content based on a user’s profile.