Posts in District Courts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of a pro se inventor’s lawsuit and denial of his motion for summary judgment. Stanley Sansone filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511 on January 23, 2019, seeking a patent for a wearable thermal device, but a patent examiner rejected all claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, after which Sansone sought continued examination.

A trademark dispute between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) and the Mormon Stories Podcast (“the Podcast”) has  this week become a broader fight over the Church’s Mormon-related trademark portfolio. The Church’s complaint, filed on April 17, 2026, alleged that the Podcast’s name, branding, and use of Church imagery create a likelihood of confusion regarding whether the Podcast is actually affiliated with the Church. Meanwhile, the Podcast’s answer to the complaint and counterclaim goes further. Rather than merely denying infringement, the Podcast is now seeking cancellation of multiple Mormon-related trademarks owned by the Church..

On June 15, 2026, a federal court in San Francisco dismissed xAI’s trade secret claims against OpenAI with prejudice. The dismissal came with prejudice for a reason that sits at the heart of this article: xAI had sought to keep the case alive long enough to obtain, in discovery, the evidence it lacked at filing. The court refused, holding that a plaintiff “was required to have completed its investigation of its claims before filing suit, not after.” Put differently: the court did not treat a job interview as a trade secret extraction ceremony.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, reversing a district court ruling that had estopped Valve Corporation from asserting two invalidity grounds at trial. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Hughes, concluded that the district court relied on insufficient evidence to estop one ground and failed to adequately account for hindsight bias in estopping the other. Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corporation, affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction that Boston Scientific Corp. and Relievant Medsystems, Inc. sought to block Stryker Corporation’s launch of its OptaBlate BVN spinal ablation device. The dispute centered on whether Stryker’s product induced infringement of claims 16 and 21 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166.

The ongoing trademark dispute between outdoor apparel company Patagonia and environmental activist and drag performer Pattie Gonia has generated considerable public attention. To many observers, the case appears to be a clash between a large corporation and an individual activist who shares many of the company’s environmental values. But viewed through the lens of trademark law, the dispute raises a far more nuanced question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s order dismissing a claim of patent infringement brought by Dynapass against Bank of America. Chief Judge Moore authored the opinion. Dynapass claimed Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, which covers a user authentication system in which user tokens are supplied through communication devices. Dynapass claimed Bank of America’s two-factor authentication feature of BOA’s Mobile Banking Application infringed claims 1–7 of the ’658 patent and sued Bank of America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC vacating judgments entered by the Eastern District of Texas and remanding to determine patent-eligibility issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit remanded primarily due to the district court’s erroneous jury instructions regarding the subject matter eligibility test under Alice, and dismissed ecobee’s patentability challenge to Ollnova’s patents directed to building automation systems (BAS) that address technical challenges present in wireless networks.

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 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. 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) today issued a precedential opinion authored by Judge Chen that clarified its case law on statutory versus constitutional standing analyses. The decision ultimately reversed and remanded a district court ruling that had dismissed a plaintiff’s patent infringement suit for lack of constitutional standing.