-
July 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel applied the wrong legal standard when it affirmed a Utah federal judge’s entry of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in a patent infringement case brought against DISH Network LLC and another entity, the plaintiff-appellant company tells the appellate court in a petition for rehearing en banc and panel rehearing.
-
July 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court denied a patent owner’s petition for a writ of certiorari to decide whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly issued a one-word affirmance of a Utah federal judge’s finding that the petitioner’s patent describing a means of measuring heart rate during exercise was directed at a patent-ineligible abstract concept.
-
July 01, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court denied a plaintiff company’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to review a September 2025 Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel’s decision to vacate a jury’s $166 million verdict against AT&T Mobility LLC and Nokia of America Corp. in the company’s favor.
-
July 01, 2026
MARSHALL, Texas — After a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in early June found that a Texas federal judge improperly combined four patents related to a heating and ventilation system into a single infringement question on the verdict form and wrongly gave the jury incomplete instructions on patent eligibility and also vacated a jury’s award of more than $11.5 million in damages, the parties notified the Texas federal court that they had reached a settlement in the dispute.
-
June 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 29 order, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel denied a computing company’s petition for a writ of mandamus, denying its bid to move a patent infringement dispute involving cryptocurrency mining technology from one federal district in Texas to another; the panel held that the company failed to show that it had an indisputable right to transfer, especially given its own third-party complaint tying the action to the original Texas district.
-
June 30, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — Tobacco company Altria Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, including companies that manufacture and sell NJOY vapes, on June 29 filed notice in Virginia federal court that they are appealing a judge’s denial of their motion to preliminarily enjoin an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation into NJOY vapes stemming from a patent complaint brought by Juul Labs Inc. (JLI), which the plaintiffs argued were unconstitutional.
-
June 25, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — 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, leaving in place a win for Pfizer Inc. as it defended its treatment for COVID-19.
-
June 25, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel agreed with a New Jersey federal judge’s finding that plaintiff-appellant companies failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their patent infringement claims against another entity, affirming the judge’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction in the dispute centering around a patented method for treating chronic back pain.
-
June 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied a petition for panel rehearing or en banc rehearing from DePuy Synthes Sales Inc. and related DePuy entities, leaving in place a split panel’s January opinion that reversed a Pennsylvania federal judge’s decision to exclude expert witnesses in a dispute brought by a physician who claimed that the DePuy entities induced surgeons to infringe certain claims of his patents.
-
June 23, 2026
MARSHALL, Texas — A Texas federal judge rejected arguments from three cell phone providers that the conclusions of a company’s damages expert “are sufficiently unreliable and flawed” and ruled that the expert can testify in a patent infringement dispute involving technology used in cellular networking equipment.
-
June 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court denied on June 22 Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp.’s petition for a writ of certiorari in which the company challenged the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that Dolby lacked standing to appeal a procedural issue in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings where the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that a petitioner failed to show the invalidity of Dolby’s patent.
-
June 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a Washington federal judge’s finding that video game company Valve Corp. was estopped from asserting invalidity arguments in defense of infringement claims asserted against it regarding a patent describing a video game controller with extra buttons located on the back; the panel held that the judge relied on insufficient evidence and failed to account for hindsight bias.
-
June 16, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) correctly construed a disputed claim phrase in a patent describing a dispensing system for certain adhesive medical materials, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said in a June 15 opinion that affirmed PTAB’s finding that the asserted claims of the patent at issue were unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art.
-
June 12, 2026
RICHMOND, Va. — A Virginia federal judge on June 11 denied a motion for a preliminary injunction that tobacco company Altria Group Inc., its vape subsidiary NJOY LLC and their affiliates filed seeking to stop an International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation into certain vape products based on a patent-related complaint by Juul Labs Inc. (JLI), writing that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their argument that such proceedings are unconstitutional and violate their rights to a jury trial under SEC v. Jarkesy.
-
June 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a win for Google LLC, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed two final written decisions in which the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that multiple claims in two patents related to using spoken words to wake up a sound-enabled device were invalid as anticipated or obvious by prior art; the panel held that PTAB lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that a prior art reference disclosed the claims at issue.
-
June 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 11 affirmed a Texas federal judge’s dismissal of a patent holder’s infringement suit against Bank of America Corp. and a related entity with prejudice, holding that the banking entities’ password technology did not meet a properly construed claim limitation central to the patent at issue.
-
June 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that a federal judge in Delaware was correct to find that a claim of a patent covering elements of OxyContin was invalid as obvious; the panel determined that substantial evidence showed that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to replace the nonscalable heating method disclosed in the prior art with a device called a coating pan and would have reasonably expected that approach to succeed.
-
June 12, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that all claims of a woman’s patents describing a system for recovering a stolen computer challenged by Google LLC and Microsoft Corp. were unpatentable as obvious; the panel also dismissed the woman’s challenge to PTAB’s refusal to revisit the institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for an alleged stipulation violation, finding that this challenge was barred from judicial review.
-
June 11, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not err when it affirmed an examiner’s finding that a robotics inventor’s application for a patent on automated kitchen systems was rendered obvious by prior art; the panel held that substantial evidence supported a finding that a person of skill in the relevant art would have motivation to combine two prior art patent applications.
-
June 09, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held June 8 that a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge was right to find that the court had no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to consider a pro se computer scientist’s Fifth Amendment takings claim against the U.S. government because copyright claims against the government can be brought only under the statute the plaintiff used to pursue relief in a series of earlier suits.
-
June 08, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 5 affirmed an Illinois federal judge’s finding that an appellant biopharmaceutical company’s generic version of an injectable antibiotic treatment method infringes another company’s patents. The panel also rejected the appellant company’s argument that the patents were invalid for lack of adequate written description (Melinta Therapeutics, LLC, et al. v. Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Nos. 25-1281, 25-1282, Fed. Cir., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259).
-
June 05, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 4 found that a Texas federal judge improperly combined four patents related to a heating and ventilation system into a single infringement question on the verdict form and wrongly gave the jury incomplete instructions on patent eligibility; the panel vacated the jury’s infringement findings and damages award of more than $11.5 million and ordered a new trial on both issues.
-
June 04, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on June 4 held that a biopharmaceutical company failed to plausibly allege that a bioequivalent maker actively induced patent infringement after considering arguments on the standard of induced infringement in medical patent cases, including ones with “skinny label” generic versions. The high court determined that the patent owner relied on vague language and speculation to attempt to show that the bioequivalent maker induced infringement.
-
June 03, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said in a June 2 opinion that it agreed with a Nebraska federal judge’s finding that patents describing the sharing of farming data were directed at patent-ineligible abstract concepts, the panel also held that the judge failed to adequately explain why the case was not exceptional for the purpose of attorney fees under the Patent Act.
-
May 29, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly concluded that a technology company’s technical expert’s testimony was conclusory and unsupported while considering inter partes review (IPR) proceedings the company initiated challenging another entity’s patent describing a digital educational content delivery system, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held in a May 28 opinion.