-
May 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly held that a technology company’s patent claims were invalid as obvious in view of prior art references, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held May 21, finding no errors in PTAB’s claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by software company Intuit Inc.
-
May 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 21 affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s finding that a biopharmaceutical company’s patents related to a medication to treat kidney disease were not infringed by other biopharmaceutical companies’ filing for approval of a generic version of the drug by adding more than the claimed amount of a specific molecule to the generic version.
-
May 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C — The U.S. Supreme Court again denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the United Services Automobile Association (USAA), leaving in place a pair of Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinions that invalidated patent claims held by USAA as being directed at the abstract concept of depositing a check with a mobile device.
-
May 19, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from a technology company that argued that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly applied its own precedent and that of the high court when it reversed U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) findings that multiple patent claims were not invalid as abstract in inter partes review proceedings involving Lyft Inc.
-
May 19, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 18 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a lighting company’s petition for a writ of certiorari that challenged the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ practice of issuing one-word affirmances of lower court decisions in patent cases, becoming the latest such unsuccessful challenge to the practice.
-
May 15, 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 patent claims describing universal remote-control systems were unpatentable as obvious in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Roku Inc. against a rival it has met on appeal at the Federal Circuit in recent months.
-
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 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
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
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 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
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a technology company’s petition for a writ of certiorari in an April 27 order list, turning down a request to hear arguments that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly affirmed a California federal judge’s entry of more than $250,000 in attorney fees and additional sanctions against the company’s counsel for bringing a suit the judge found to be obviously meritless.
-
April 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a gene therapy product maker’s petition for rehearing en banc, leaving in place a panel’s finding that a Delaware federal judge wrongly concluded that a patent’s claims involving genetically engineered cultured host cells containing a recombinant nucleic acid molecule were directed to a natural phenomenon.
-
April 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a mixed result, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 23 affirmed a New York federal judge’s finding that some patent claims asserted against Google LLC and YouTube LLC in an infringement dispute were invalid as indefinite but reversed summary judgment as to other claims; the panel held that factual questions remained regarding whether an accused Google Content ID system met a claim limitation requiring a “‘sublinear’” search.