-
May 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a corrected May 13 order, the full Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals again denied a petition for en banc rehearing to reconsider whether a NASA subcontractor was immunized from infringement claims through its work for the federal government in its help developing a helicopter sent to Mars, leaving in place a panel’s February finding that the company was in fact immune.
-
May 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a lower court’s decision to award a company certain attorney fees it incurred defending itself against patent infringement claims, finding that the lower court was right to find the case “exceptional.”
-
May 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 13 affirmed a West Virginia federal judge’s finding that a generic drug maker did not infringe patents describing a compound used in a hypertension drug because a claim term “a pH of 13 or higher” referred to a standard temperature in the field; the panel said it found no clear error in the judge’s claim construction.
-
May 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A partially split Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals largely affirmed findings from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision finding that multiple claims of railroad collision-avoidance patents were invalid as obvious as per prior art; the panel reversed the PTAB’s finding that certain challenged claims survived, determining that the PTAB employed too narrow a claim construction on these claims.
-
May 13, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three pro se plaintiff-appellants lacked standing to sue the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after it rejected their request to submit their patent application as a micro entity because they failed to show that they retained an interest in the application, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held May 12, agreeing with a Texas federal judge who granted the PTO’s motion to dismiss.
-
May 13, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Texas federal judge’s bench trial judgment that defendant-appellant manufacturing entities infringed a battery company’s trademark on the word “Trojan” in connection with batteries for electric vehicles, including golf carts, by releasing an electric golf cart that used the word in its name; however, the panel vacated a permanent injunction entered against the defendant appellants, holding that it was overly broad.
-
May 13, 2026
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a New York federal judge’s decision to deny adidas America Inc.’s motion for a new trial in a trademark dispute with Thom Browne Inc.; the panel agreed that while Thom Browne failed to disclose certain emails, adidas failed to show how those emails would have changed the jury’s verdict.
-
May 11, 2026
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a Colorado federal judge’s dismissal of a charter school management nonprofit organization’s claims that a charter school network infringed marks related to schools’ names after the end of management agreements that allowed use of the marks; the panel held that the terms of those agreements were ambiguous as to whether the management entity had a protectable interest in the marks it asserted against the school network.
-
May 08, 2026
OAKLAND, Calif. — Authors in an artificial intelligence copyright case may proceed with their contributory infringement claim but not their vicarious infringement claim, a federal judge in California said in citing a March 25 U.S. Supreme Court ruling while partially denying a motion to dismiss filed by Nvidia Corp.
-
May 08, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A split Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a California federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Igloo Products Corp. on a federal false advertising claim against it, with the panel majority saying that Igloo’s claim that it had created the “first biodegradable cooler” was not a comment on the nature of the product itself and thus not actionable under the Lanham Act.
-
May 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find that the company formerly known as DraftKings Inc. failed to show that a single patent claim was invalid in its otherwise successful challenge of another company’s online gaming patent; the panel agreed with the PTAB that an argument regarding the patent claim was inappropriately raised for the first time in a footnote in a reply brief.
-
May 07, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — A Virginia federal judge correctly concluded that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly withheld draft decisions in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, agreeing that the materials were “predecisional” and “deliberative” under the meaning of a FOIA exemption.
-
May 06, 2026
TACOMA, Wash. — A federal magistrate judge in Washington granted a defendant website operator a narrow summary judgment win by finding that a plaintiff workplace-training program maker could not show that the operator contributed to third-party infringement of trademarks related to a workplace bingo program; genuine disputes of fact exist as to whether the defendant company itself infringed the marks, the magistrate judge also held.
-
May 06, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 5 affirmed a California federal judge’s finding that mobile device technology patent claims asserted in an infringement suit against Google LLC were invalid as directed at the abstract concept of screening notifications without an additional inventive concept.
-
May 05, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon federal judge denied a motion from the trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York to dismiss trademark infringement claims brought against the university by Columbia Sportswear Co. and affiliated entities, holding that the sportswear company sufficiently established that the Oregon federal court had specific personal jurisdiction over the university.
-
May 05, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 4 affirmed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling that a plaintiff-appellant chemical company’s asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite; the panel saw no error in the judge’s finding that the claim term “about” did not define the boundaries of a claimed range of pH levels.
-
May 04, 2026
DENVER — In a reversal from a March 2024 opinion, a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Oklahoma federal judge’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Netflix Inc. and another production company, now agreeing with the judge that video clips from a funeral used in the documentary television series “Tiger King” constituted a fair use.
-
May 01, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California granted a motion from Shein Distribution Corp. and affiliates to dismiss unfair competition and false designation of origin claims brought against them by another fashion entity, finding that the claims were preempted by federal copyright law because they were based only on the alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted images.
-
May 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly construed two disputed claim terms during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Google LLC, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held April 30; the appeals court rejected the plaintiff-appellant technology company’s claim that PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by providing an analysis that does not enable Federal Circuit review.
-
April 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that patent claims describing “optimization” of “constellations” of geometrically mapped data were ineligible as abstract, vacating a Texas federal judge’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility in a patent infringement dispute initiated by a technology company against LG Electronics Inc. and related entities.
-
April 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument April 29 on the standard for the inducement of infringement in medical patent cases, including ones that involve “skinny label” generic versions. A bioequivalent manufacturer told the high court that recent precedent emphasized that an entity must take active steps to induce infringement, while a patent-owning pharmaceutical company maintained that statements made by the bioequivalent maker did not clearly disclaim patented cardiovascular uses, thus inducing infringement.
-
April 29, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Crocs Inc.’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s January opinion that held that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) did not abuse its discretion by granting a limited exclusion order (LEO) and not a general exclusion order (GEO) to Crocs against defaulting defendants accused of importing products that infringed or diluted its trademarks.
-
April 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Texas federal judge’s denial of a technology company’s request for a new merits trial and a new trial on damages; the panel held that substantial evidence supported a jury’s findings that the company failed to show that one of its asserted patents describing digital subscriber line (DSL) technology was infringed and that another asserted patent was invalidated by prior art references.
-
April 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Across two opinions, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed losses for a technology company before both the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), agreeing with findings that the company’s patent claims were invalid as obvious and that it failed to show that a competitor company violated a section of the Tariff Act by importing allegedly infringing products.
-
April 27, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge incorrectly determined at the pleading stage that a hip-hop news outlet’s reproduction of a video of basketball player Michael Jordan breaking up a fight constituted fair use, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, finding that the news outlet “potentially provided consumers with a substitute work that obviated the need to seek out (and pay for) the video” shot by a plaintiff-appellant videographer.