Posts in District Courts

In a win for TikTok, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(c) motion holding 10Tales, Inc.’s targeted content patent claims invalid as ineligible under Section 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna. 10Tales sued TikTok and ByteDance in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030, which generally covers “a system for customizing or personalizing content based on user social network information.”

At IPWatchdog LIVE 2026, a panel on IP litigation strategy returned to a point experienced litigators know well: most IP cases are not won at trial. Instead, the decisive work often occurs much earlier, through pre-suit diligence, early motion practice, discovery strategy, and expert challenges that shape whether a case survives long enough to reach a jury.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday denied a motion for summary judgment in Cinemavault, Inc. v. Gameshow Network, LLC, allowing a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit to proceed to trial. Judge Joel H. Slomsky rejected Gameshow Network, LLC’s arguments that Cinemavault, Inc. failed to continuously use its trademark, that Cinemavault, Inc. was judicially estopped from bringing a likelihood of confusion claim, and that the relevant Lapp factors precluded Cinemavault from establishing a likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a decision in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., affirming a district court’s dismissal of AIT’s patent infringement suit against Salesforce for lack of constitutional standing. The court determined that the district court correctly concluded that Applications in Internet Time, LLC (AIT) had no exclusionary patent rights at the inception of the lawsuit. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief to cure the constitutional standing defect.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential decisions in The Trustees of Columbia University of the City of New York v. Gen Digital Inc., reversing, vacating and remanding a district court judgment that Columbia’s patent claims were patent eligible in one, and reversing a contempt order against the Defendant’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in another.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday filed a joint Statement of Interest preferencing strong injunctive relief for patent owners over courts valuing patents. The brief comes just a few months after the two agencies filed a joint statement of interest at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) arguing that exclusion orders should be the presumptive remedy for infringement there.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC vacating a district court’s summary judgment rulings on both inequitable conduct and a Walker Process fraud claim. The court determined that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on both issues and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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 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.

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.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Wednesday granted a case-dispositive motion for judgment in favor of Apple Inc., finding the single patent claim asserted by Immervision, Inc., invalid for lack of enablement. In a memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that Immervision’s claim was an impermissible “single-means claim,” a seldom-invoked doctrine of patent law. The ruling, which Judge Noreika noted would be case-dispositive, concluding the patent infringement suit that Immervision had brought against Apple.