-
July 31, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in a July 30 opinion affirmed a finding from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that a telecommunications company’s challenged patent claims were invalid as anticipated; the panel rejected the appellant entity’s argument that PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by relying on an argument about which it did not have proper notice.
-
July 31, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A split Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Illinois federal judge’s decision to dissolve a preliminary injunction issued against a defendant-appellee and deny a temporary restraining order against new defendants in a dispute over a design patent covering a foldable fan, rejecting the plaintiff-appellant’s contention that collateral estoppel barred the judge from reconsidering the injunction and that the judge impermissibly relied on a later-issued, presumptively valid design patent to conclude that the plaintiff-appellant was unlikely to prove infringement.
-
July 31, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After the expiration of the relevant patent, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a final determination from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that an appellant company violated an import trade law by importing a device that infringed a skin treatment company’s patent, rejecting the patent owner’s citation of potential collateral effects on a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.
-
July 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied without explanation Microsoft Corp.’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s March reversal of a Texas federal judge’s decision to exclude a plaintiff technology company’s expert on damages and vacatur of the judge’s grant of summary judgment for absence of remedy in Microsoft’s favor on infringement claims involving patents describing a method for communication between virtual networks.
-
July 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — 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, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held in a July 27 opinion, reversing 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.
-
July 27, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a June opinion in which a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Massachusetts federal judge’s finding that a biopharmaceutical company’s patent claims were invalid as anticipated by a public disclosure of a chemical compound central to the patent, the patent holder has filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel’s opinion creates a new and unprecedented requirement for an in haec verba disclosure to satisfy the written description requirement.
-
July 27, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in a July 24 opinion affirmed a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that held multiple claims of a patent describing a system for analyzing operational problems in trains were unpatentable as obvious.
-
July 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in a July 23 opinion partly revived a technology company’s patent infringement dispute against Amazon.com Inc. over digital picture frame devices because the claim’s specific technical solution meant it was not directed at an abstract idea, reversing a California federal judge’s finding that one of the patent claims at issue was invalid.
-
July 23, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied Apple Inc.’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s March finding that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) did not err when it held that Apple violated the Tariff Act by importing and selling Apple Watch models that infringed blood oxygenation patents held by other technology entities.
-
July 21, 2026
PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 20 affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s dismissal with prejudice of a breach of contract suit involving a licensing agreement for patented hand sanitizer and other skin-care products; the panel agreed with the judge that the plaintiff-appellant entity never received a required affirmative written communication that would allow it to bring infringement suits regarding the patents.
-
July 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said on July 17 that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that certain claims of a patent describing a type of manually-operated treadmill were unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art references should stand in a dispute between two fitness device manufacturers.
-
July 17, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a pair of July 16 opinions, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that claims of multiple patents describing a chip for use in printers were unpatentable as obvious, seeing no error in PTAB’s construction of certain claims, its motivation-to-combine analysis or other challenged elements of its decision.
-
July 16, 2026
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 15 affirmed a New York federal judge’s denial of a plaintiff-appellant biopharmaceutical company’s motion to vacate or modify a $16.5 million arbitral award in a licensing dispute over an expired patent covering a multiple sclerosis drug; the panel said the plaintiff-appellant “slept on its right” by voluntarily making postexpiration payments to the patent holder.
-
July 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 15 affirmed a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that a technology company failed to show that patent claims describing a biometric technology device were unpatentable as obvious; the panel rejected the appellant company’s contention that PTAB wrongly construed claim phrase “biometric signal.”
-
July 15, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Google LLC failed to show that a technology company’s patent was invalid as obvious, holding that PTAB adopted a claim construction without allowing Google a meaningful opportunity to respond when considering a patent describing voice-controlled web browsing.
-
July 14, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 13 opinion, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed an Ohio federal judge’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a dispute concerning a patent on a rolling insulated door; the panel held that the accused product raised substantial questions of noninfringement and that the plaintiff-appellee entities failed to prove likely irreparable harm.
-
July 13, 2026
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge dismissed with prejudice a music technology company’s patent infringement complaint against musical instrument company Roland Corp. and its U.S. subsidiary, finding that the plaintiff company’s patent on an electronic tuning device is directed at patent-ineligible concepts because it uses generic components to collect and analyze musical information.
-
July 13, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel revived a technology company’s patent infringement claims related to one of two patents it asserted against Amazon.com Services LLC and a related entity, vacating a Delaware federal judge’s finding that the plaintiff-appellant’s patent was invalid as indefinite because a precedential Federal Circuit ruling issued after the judge’s decision warrants further analysis of the issue.
-
July 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9 upheld a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of a claim of a medical technology company’s patent describing a blood sample collection device; the panel agreed with the finding that prior art anticipated the claim, rendering it unpatentable.
-
July 10, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 9 saw no error in a Delaware federal judge’s decision to grant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on invalidity as to multiple patent claims asserted by a biopharmaceutical company that accused AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and a related entity of infringing its cancer treatment patents; the panel agreed with the judge that the asserted patents disclosed only broad projected ranges of dosages without clearly explaining how to determine a therapeutic dosage.
-
July 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 7 rejected a magnetic technology company’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to stay a Pennsylvania federal judge’s holding that stayed a patent infringement action while parallel proceedings continue before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); the panel found the company failed to show a clear right to undoing the stay.
-
July 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 7 affirmed a California federal judge’s holding that a dental technology plaintiff-appellant company’s patents describing the use of machine learning technology in a dental imaging tool were directed at patent-ineligible abstract concepts.
-
July 07, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 6 ruling, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said that a settlement agreement in a patent infringement dispute mooted the plaintiff-appellant’s appeal of a New York federal judge’s finding that the patent claims at issue were invalid as abstract.
-
July 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a patent-holding company that sought review of a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming a Texas federal judge’s grant of attorney fees to a defendant after dismissing the petitioner plaintiff’s patent infringement complaint.
-
July 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 denied an inventor’s petition for a writ of certiorari in which he argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly upheld a District of Columbia federal judge’s finding that prosecution laches barred the inventor’s patent applications; the high court decided against hearing the inventor’s arguments that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot use judge-made prosecution laches to deny patents when the applicant complied with Congress’s timing rules.