Posts in Courts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Gamble affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that sustained an examiner’s rejection of multiple claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,077 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b). The CAFC concluded that Oliver Wendel Gamble, who represented himself, forfeited any substantive argument on indefiniteness before the Board and on appeal.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Judge Pauline Newman’s petition for certiorari in June, the Chief Justice of the United States has transferred Newman’s judicial misconduct case to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council. Newman has been asking for her case to be transferred for more than three years. According to an Eleventh Circuit Order published today, the Chief Justice transferred Newman’s complaint “and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter” to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council on August 19, 2026.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order Tuesday in In re Google LLC, granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) to transfer a patent infringement case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA). The CAFC concluded that “the decision to deny transfer here was patently erroneous.”

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first major omnibus order list of the October 2026 term, denying petitions for writ of certiorari in a series of intellectual property-related cases. These denials from the nation’s highest court leave in place contested rulings over the application of apportionment principles to damages in patent and trade secret cases. Other cert denials include appeals to IP-related claims barred under res judicata, including one petition arguing for a manifest injustice exception, and yet another challenge to the Section 101 patent-eligibility inquiry developed at the Federal Circuit.

In economic theory, corporate value creation can be attributed to many factors and conflicting preferences. Prioritizing different factors produces a set of different outcomes and the outcome that is seemingly most efficient becomes the accepted norm. Sometimes however, corporate actors rely on accepted business practices which, while taken in the pursuit of the most optimal outcome, facilitate market distortions. Hit by a compute-driven demand shock and faced with resource scarcity, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have opted to allocate production capacity in a way that has exacerbated an industry- wide memory card supply shortage. But to fully understand why the price of hardware components and consumer electronic devices has been steadily surging, we must first start with Nvidia.

Carrie Hafeman, an independent inventor who has been fighting a years-long patent battle against Google and Microsoft, has filed a petition for rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June 2026 precedential decision affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating all claims of three of her patents. Hafeman is pursuing her case pro se after her attorneys recently withdrew.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in O’Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC, reversing in part, affirming in part, and vacating in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on two powered cover plate patents. The CAFC concluded that claim 1 of one patent is not as limited as the district court determined, and it upheld the district court’s rulings on other disputed claim limitations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found claims 1 through 33 of a patent on herbicide-degrading enzymes unpatentable for lack of enablement. The CAFC rejected arguments that the PTAB improperly relied on experimental data generated after the patent’s priority date and abused its discretion in crediting an expert witness.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims of Satius Holding, LLC’s wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A., affirming a U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware judgment for Galderma S.A. on tortious interference, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation claims. The CAFC held that Truinject Corporation forfeited its arguments on appeal about the dismissal of its tortious interference claim and the summary judgment of no damages.

Patent infringement litigation is often discussed in terms of high-profile disputes or headline verdicts. What receives less attention is the cost of getting there. Whether a company is enforcing its patent rights or defending against a claim, the financial impact of patent litigation can be significant long before a case ever reaches trial. For many businesses, particularly those operating in technology-driven industries, patent litigation is no longer just a legal issue. It is a business consideration that can influence strategy, resource allocation and long-term planning.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated dismissing ParkerVision’s appeal from a judgment of non-infringement for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The CAFC determined that a partial final judgment entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was not final, since it resolved infringement of only some claims of a single patent. The CAFC also denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge on remand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday vacating and remanding a district court ruling that had denied Pen-Tech Associates, Inc.’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees due to Epic Tech, LLC’s allegedly frivolous infringement claims. The CAFC found the district court had provided “insufficient detail to permit meaningful review.”

On Tuesday, news reports indicated that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling under seal affirming the District of Delaware’s grant of partial summary judgment to Canadian technology company Thomson Reuters on its claims that legal artificial intelligence (AI) company ROSS Intelligence infringed upon more than 2,000 copyrighted headnote summaries of U.S. case law from its Westlaw legal research platform.