-
November 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) wrongly found that a prior art patent did not disclose a disputed thrust-bearing element when considering if a challenged patent’s claims would have been obvious in view of the prior art, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held in an Oct. 30 opinion.
-
November 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. government has told the U.S. Supreme Court that it should deny Federal Express Corp.’s petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was correct to hold that it was barred from reviewing whether Qualcomm Inc. identified all real parties in interest in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) now agrees that it should resolve such disputes before considering an IPR petition, the government says that change does not permit judicial review of the agency’s earlier handling of this case.
-
November 02, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel reversed a Texas federal court’s decision to allow Motorola Mobility LLC and related parties to obtain a defendant-appellant’s patent purchase agreement for use in European patent litigation, holding that the court improperly required the defendant-appellant to disprove the foreign courts’ receptivity and gave insufficient weight to the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) earlier refusal to order the same discovery.
-
October 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) properly affirmed an examiner’s rejection of an applicant’s proposed patent describing a method of exchanging gold and silver for electronically recorded purchasing value, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, because the proposed patent describes abstract economic concepts without a necessary inventive concept.
-
October 30, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Three amicus curiae briefs have been filed in support of Apple Inc.’s petition for a writ of certiorari, in which the technology giant argues to the U.S. Supreme Court that a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel’s opinion may have weakened a requirement that limits the power of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) when the panel found that the 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.
-
October 28, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a California federal judge’s decision to dismiss an attorney’s patent infringement suit against a host of defendant-appellees because she failed to oppose dismissal motions.
-
October 22, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Google LLC failed to show that 23 claims of a patent related to technology designed to merge search results were unpatentable, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and rejecting Google’s attempt to point to a patent application filed five weeks earlier as well as a three-week gap between when the last inventor signed his oath and the filing of the patent application.
-
October 19, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 19 denied a pro se inventor’s petition for a writ of certiorari filed after the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge’s decisions to dismiss the inventor’s patent claims against the U.S. government for allegedly taking his cell phone related patents and deny the inventor’s motion to disqualify the judge.
-
October 19, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 19 denied Google LLC’s petition for a writ of certiorari challenging an order by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declining to reconsider the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) reliance on “‘settled expectations’” in denying Google’s petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging a software patent.
-
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 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
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 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
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 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.
-
October 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Over the objections of one circuit judge, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied a petition from Eli Lilly and Co. (Lilly) for rehearing en banc and panel rehearing, leaving in place a panel’s April decision to reverse a Massachusetts federal judge’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity on patents held by Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and its American affiliate for lack of written description and enablement; the denial of rehearing also leaves in place the panel’s decision to reinstate the jury’s verdict.
-
October 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Georgia federal judge failed to adequately explain why a plaintiff-appellee technology company’s infringement suit was reasonable despite a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, vacating the judge’s denial of the defendant-appellant’s motion for attorney fees and sanctions and remanding for further proceedings.
-
October 02, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 1 affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s judgment for defendants-appellees in a contract and trade secret dispute that formerly involved patent infringement claims, finding that the plaintiff-appellant forfeited its interference and damages theories advanced on appeal, which the panel said was a sufficient reason to affirm.