Posts in Federal Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., holding that Amarin failed to “plausibly allege” that Hikma actively induced infringement of its “icosapent ethyl” product,  marketed as Vascepa. The decision, which was originally seen as a so-called skinny label case applying narrowly to the pharmaceutical industry and Hatch-Waxman litigation, scolded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its recent approach and has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co., reversing a ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and holding that Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co. retained sufficient exclusionary rights to satisfy Article III constitutional standing, even after licensing certain patent rights to an affiliated entity. The ruling came after a precedential opinion issued today on the same topic.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list showing that the nation’s highest court had denied a series of petitions for writ of certiorari filed by major pharmaceutical developers to challenge the Medicare negotiation program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The Supreme Court also denied cert to an appeal of Section 101 patent-eligibility issues from a Federal Circuit ruling involving mobile banking technology, as well as a pro se cert appealing copyright and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against Disney.