-
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.
-
July 02, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — Resolving a dispute involving patent licensing agreements, foreign discovery and German and Indian law, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion concluding that a lower court erred by ordering disclosure to in-house counsel for a nonparty’s competitor because the lower court wrongly overrode one clause in the agreements’ confidentiality protections.
-
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.