Posts in Courts

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC has managed to defend its patent at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with a split panel on Thursday affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that Tesla failed to prove Charge Fusion’s electric vehicle (EV) charger claims unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen, who was joined by Judge Reyna, while Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued an order in In re Kahoot! AS, denying another petition for writ of mandamus that challenged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director’s refusal to institute an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on “settled expectations” of the patent owner. The per curiam order was issued by Circuit Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), affirming the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. And it means the Federal Circuit should rule in favor of Director Squires and against Volkswagen in one of the more constitutionally focused writs of mandamus challenging Squires and his use of discretion to decide institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs). And there is no need for an oral argument.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued three orders denying mandamus petitions filed by inter partes review (IPR) petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Each of the petitioners was seeking relief from the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute their IPR petitions, following decisions that denied institution of the IPRs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a summary judgment ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York finding the claims of a natural language processing patent asserted against Amazon.com, Inc. invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and CF Dynamic Advances LLC originally brought the lawsuit against Amazon for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,177,798, which discloses a “method for processing a natural language input provided by a user.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on February 20 affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings upholding claims of Netlist, Inc.’s patent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision on Friday reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment that REGENEXBIO, Inc.’s patent claims were ineligible as directed to a natural phenomenon. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that REGENXBIO’s and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania’s gene therapy patent claims were directed to a natural phenomenon and therefore patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the unanimous CAFC reversed that decision, thereby reviving REGENEXBIO’s infringement suit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision finding Sony’s Playstation controllers and consoles did not infringe Genuine Enabling Technology’s (GET’s) patent for computer input devices. GET alleged that Sony directly and indirectly infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730 via certain Playstation products. Specifically, GET said that the products’ Bluetooth module “synchronized user input from controller buttons with input from controller sensors,” thereby meeting the claims’ “encoding means” limitation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed in part a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding certain claims of ST Case1Tech, LLC’s (ST1’s) patent obvious, but vacated the decision as to two claims that petitioner Samsung had not challenged before the Board. The panel included Judges Reyna, Taranto and Stark and was authored by Judge Stark.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Willis Electric Co. v. Polygroup Ltd., affirming a jury verdict that found Polygroup liable for patent infringement. The CAFC upheld the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota’s decision to deny Polygroup’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on obviousness and for a new trial on damages. As a result, the ruling included an award of nearly $42.5 million in damages to Willis Electric Co., Ltd. Chief Judge Moore authored the opinion, joined by Judge Stark and District Judge Oetken.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment in Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. Moderna, Inc., narrowing the invalidity defenses that Moderna can assert at a jury trial. U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson precluded Moderna from challenging several Arbutus patents on obviousness and derivation grounds but found that Moderna had raised a genuine factual dispute regarding enablement that must be resolved by a jury.

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that service of two China-based defendants by email violated the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, also known as the “Hague Convention,” and therefore was not permitted under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, U.S. App. LEXIS 33039, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).   While the Second Circuit looked at whether the Hague Convention explicitly identifies email as a permitted method of service, the proper question is whether the Hague Convention prohibits service by email.

As the AI revolution accelerates and continues to reshape traditional business models, it has triggered a cascade of new legal, regulatory and policy challenges. At the forefront of these emerging issues are a growing number of high-stakes legal battles between content creators and major Generative AI (GenAI) companies behind large language models (LLMs). This article examines key legal themes and critical questions arising from recent developments at the intersection of AI and Copyright law.

A magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware today issued a Report and Recommendation to grant a motion by VideoAmp, Inc. to dismiss The Nielsen Company (US) LLC’s complaint against it for infringement of Nielsen’s patents related to audience measurement systems because the patents are directed to ineligible subject matter… According to today’s opinion, the ‘402 patent is “generally directed to associating identified user data with media being displayed.”