-
October 16, 2026
PITTSBURGH — A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania ordered that parties’ bonds remain in place in a dispute over intellectual property rights related to a fudge recipe while the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals mulls appellate attorney fees; a partially split appeals court panel in July affirmed an award of attorney fees against plaintiff entities for their unsuccessful copyright and trademark claims in the dispute and affirmed their jury victory on trade secret claims.
-
October 16, 2026
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Concluding that multiple employees of third-party consultants “acted as functional employees of” the defendant in a patent dispute, a Florida federal magistrate judge ruled that he didn’t have enough information to issue a protective order but that the defendant “did not waive the attorney client privilege purely because information was disclosed to” the consultants and “the work product doctrine could apply to the documents at issue.”
-
October 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in June affirmed a federal judge’s decision to cancel a patriotic clothing company’s trademark on the phrase “This We’ll Defend” because another company began using the phrase as a mark years earlier, the clothing company that saw its mark canceled is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the Lanham Act authorizes prejudgment interest in ordinary trademark infringement cases.
-
October 16, 2026
PHOENIX — A federal judge in Arizona correctly dismissed a man’s complaint against Google LLC alleging that it infringed a trademark on his name by allowing allegedly defamatory material about him to appear in search results, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, finding that the plaintiff-appellant abandoned his theory of trademark infringement on appeal and failed to plead a newly asserted theory in the district court.
-
October 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in June affirmed a federal judge’s decision to cancel a patriotic clothing company’s trademark on the phrase “This We’ll Defend” because another company began using the phrase as a mark years earlier, the clothing company that saw its mark canceled is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the Lanham Act authorizes prejudgment interest in ordinary trademark infringement cases.
-
October 15, 2026
GREEN BAY, Wis. — After a Wisconsin federal judge for a second time granted summary judgment of patent invalidity to a defendant eyeglass company, the company is requesting the judge find the patent infringement case against it to be exceptional and award it attorney fees.
-
October 15, 2026
CHICAGO — A Chicago rooftop bar that overlooks Wrigley Field and its owner have appealed an Illinois federal judge’s entry of a permanent injunction that bars them from using marks owned by the Chicago Cubs Baseball Club LLC and from selling tickets to view Cubs games from the bar; the judge issued the injunction after granting the Cubs’ motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement claims but granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Cubs’ false advertising claims.
-
October 15, 2026
SHERMAN, Texas — In an amended memorandum opinion, a Texas federal judge awarded guitar maker Gibson Inc. more than $4 million in attorney fees and costs from a company a jury held infringed trademarked guitar shapes, finding that fees were warranted based on the jury’s finding that the defendant entity intentionally infringed and counterfeited the trademarks.
-
October 15, 2026
SAN DIEGO — In a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial, Apple Inc. tells a California federal judge that the plaintiff technology company that a jury found was owed $5.7 billion in damages has “no way to support any damages award, not just the shocking record-setting award from the jury.”
-
October 14, 2026
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware dismissed a biotechnology company’s complaint against an animal-free egg protein maker, finding that there was no imminent substantial controversy between the parties that would give the court subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s patent is unenforceable, invalid and not infringed; the judge also found that the plaintiff lacked statutory standing to pursue a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act and failed to state a claim for tortious interference.
-
October 13, 2026
DENVER — A federal magistrate judge in Colorado denied a man’s motion for a stay of the execution of judgment entered in favor of the American organization for worshippers in the Bahá’í faith on trademark claims during the pendency of his appeal; the man remains obligated to transfer a web domain to the religious entity after the magistrate judge determined in March that the outcome of the trademark claims was determined by the defendant’s loss before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
-
October 12, 2026
BOSTON — A Massachusetts federal judge “reluctantly” entered a default judgment against a coffee shop and its owner that were accused of infringing marks associated with two grisly 1800s murders owned by a paranormal tour company that owns the house where the murders took place; the judge said that while he had doubts about the tour company’s likelihood of success on the merits, the coffee shop’s ongoing failure to secure counsel and its owner’s failure to comply with discovery orders made the default judgment necessary.
-
October 12, 2026
SAN JOSE — Impossible Foods Inc. is appealing to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals a California federal judge’s amended judgment that established that it owes $1.5 million in damages after a jury found in March that it infringed a web company’s marks on the word “Impossible.”
-
October 09, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to uphold the rejection of a pro se appellant’s application for a patent on a method for grouping messages on a mobile device as indefinite; the panel held that the appellant forfeited his challenges to the rejection before PTAB and on appeal.
-
October 09, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said that a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer a patent infringement suit brought by the University of Southern California (USC) against Google LLC to a federal court in California was “patently erroneous,” granting Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
-
October 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 7 rejected a petition for panel rehearing from the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System (UT), leaving in place the panel’s July ruling that a technology company was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in its favor in a dispute over a patent describing a biodegradable fiber implant. The ruling reversed a Delaware federal jury’s findings in favor of the patent holder because a prior art patent disclosed every asserted claim of the patent at issue.
-
October 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge erred by dismissing a third-party indemnification claim from a patent infringement suit as moot after the entry of summary judgment of noninfringement, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled; the panel vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, noting that the parties agreed that dismissal for lack of supplemental jurisdiction by the district court would be appropriate.
-
October 07, 2026
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge granted AstraZeneca’s bid to restrict a defense expert’s testimony in litigation over patents covering its cancer drug Lynparza pending in a New Jersey federal court, ruling that the expert is qualified to testify about medicinal chemistry but not genetics, cancer cell biology, clinical trial interpretation or cancer treatment.
-
October 07, 2026
PEORIA, Ill. — A federal judge in Illinois granted the Illinois Agricultural Association’s (IAA) motion for a preliminary injunction in its second trademark infringement case against a media group focusing on content for rural listeners, finding that IAA is likely to succeed on its claims that the media group infringed its “RFD” trademarks.
-
October 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court denied Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals LP’s petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving in place a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel’s decision affirming a Delaware federal judge’s exclusion of parts of an expert’s patent damages theories for failure to apportion properly.
-
October 06, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied separate requests from a patent holder and its counsel William P. Ramey III for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s decision to affirm a Texas federal judge’s dismissal of the patent holder’s suit against Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and an award of more than $200,000 in attorney fees to the car maker; the order also leaves in place the panel’s timeliness finding that led it to reject Ramey’s appeal of the judge’s order holding him jointly and severally liable.
-
October 06, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 again denied an Italian wine company’s application to recall and stay a mandate of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which in June vacated a New York federal judge’s summary judgment finding that a 2004 U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision had preclusive effect on the issue of likelihood of confusion on claims that a California winery infringed the Italian winery’s trademarks.
-
October 06, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Summary judgment in favor of Quizlet Inc. stands following a California federal judge’s conclusion that a nursing test preparation company did not meet the standard for reconsideration in an artificial intelligence-related copyright infringement lawsuit.
-
October 05, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 denied a patent owner’s request that it consider the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm a Washington federal judge’s dismissal of its infringement complaint against Google LLC, leaving in place the panel’s January holding that the asserted claims of the patent were directed at an unpatentable abstract idea.
-
October 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a pair of Oct. 1 opinions, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s finding that a technology company’s patent claims asserted against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its American affiliate were invalid, agreeing with Samsung’s alternative argument that the claims were improperly enabled while disagreeing with the judge’s finding that the claims were indefinite; the panel also dismissed as moot the plaintiff-appellant’s separate challenge to findings from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that one of the claims was unpatentable as obvious.