Posts in Courts

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) this week filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman. The reply brief responded directly to the opposition brief filed by the Solicitor General, representing the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit, on May 12, which urged the Court to deny review of Newman’s petition.

The $170 million jury verdict against GoDaddy in its dispute with Express Mobile continues to offer important lessons for companies managing patent exposure, even after the court set aside the jury’s willfulness finding. While the case may not become the landmark post-Halo willfulness decision some initially anticipated, it still underscores a critical reality of modern patent risk: once a company becomes aware of potentially relevant patents, how it responds can matter as much as the patent itself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today affirmed a district court ruling that five AGI SureTrack agricultural technology patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It also vacated the finding of no exceptionality and remanded for further proceedings on whether Farmers Edge is entitled to attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Circuit Judge Mayer authored the opinion, joined by Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Lourie.

On Friday, a series of computer and automotive industry trade organizations representing most of the top filers of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant Google’s petition for writ of certiorari that ultimately challenges the PTAB’s settled expectations doctrine as developed under the current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administration.

There’s a great deal of excitement and preparation for the Olympic Games, which will come to Los Angeles and Oklahoma City in 2028. Those of us in Oklahoma City are thrilled to host two events on behalf of LA28, softball and canoe slalom. If you are a business owner in one of these cities, you may be thinking, “How can I capitalize on the Olympic Games coming to my city?” This is the first of several helpful articles in which we will walk you through the myriad of legal issues and opportunities associated with hosting the Olympic Games.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today reversed a district court’s judgment upholding a jury verdict of trade secret misappropriation and damages. The CAFC majority, with Judge Prost dissenting, found that the statute of limitations to bring a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) had expired. The decision reverses a $59.4 million damages award and was authored by Judge Dyk.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had found Go1 Pty, Ltd. failed to prove the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 unpatentable as obvious. In the opinion, Judge Stoll found that the PTAB improperly dismissed expert testimony as conclusory when the expert relied on professional judgment and common sense to explain a simple design choice. The case involves an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Go1 challenging claims 1-16 of the ‘113 patent, which is owned by OpenSesame, Inc. and directed to an open and interactive e-learning system and method.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires on Tuesday, May 26, filed a Brief in Opposition to Gilbert Hyatt’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which asks the Court to review—and ultimately reject—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s existing doctrine of prosecution laches. Hyatt filed his petition on March 2, 2026. The specific question presented to the Justices is: “Whether the PTO may invoke the equitable doctrine of ‘prosecution laches’ to deny a patent to an applicant who has complied with all the Patent Act’s timeliness provisions.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday denied motions to dismiss three copyright infringement lawsuits brought by a jury consultant, Lindsay Olson, against criminal defense attorneys representing defendants charged in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, who downloaded her copyrighted report from a public docket and republished it in their own clients’ cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in ClearPlay, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C., affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement in favor of DISH Network L.L.C. and EchoStar Technologies LLC. The ruling held that the trial evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to ClearPlay, was insufficient to sustain the jury’s infringement verdict on either of the asserted patents.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co. reversing the Eastern District of Michigan’s ruling on judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) reducing Versata’s unjust enrichment damages to $0 after holding that the district court erred in precluding such damages from being awarded by a jury. The Federal Circuit also reinstated the jury verdict’s full award on Versata’s breach of contract claim after finding that the jury properly relied on a damages basis established via the parties’ licensing history, and affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL to Ford on the knowledge required for trade secret liability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions Friday in Pictometry International Corporation v. Roofr Inc., affirming separate Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that held all claims of two Pictometry International Corporation patents unpatentable for obviousness over combinations of prior art.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision finding all claims of Samesurf’s patent directed to synchronized web browsing sessions unpatentable for obviousness. The decision was authored by Circuit Judge Stark and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Chen, who held that the Board correctly construed the central disputed claim term.

A patent claim of invention is considered obvious, and thus unpatentable, in light of a combination of prior art references if a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a reason, or motivation, to combine the references as recited in the claim. There are responses, or defenses, to such a finding of obviousness, including if the combination renders the reference unsatisfactory or inoperable for its intended purpose – also called “frustration of purpose.