Posts in Federal Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that held all challenged claims of a fungicide combination patent unpatentable. The CAFC rejected arguments from UPL Ltd. and affirmed the PTAB’s denial of leave for Syngenta Crop Protection AG to seek sanctions.

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.”

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.

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.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on September 25 in Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all claims of a speech recognition patent unpatentable as obvious. The court rejected Zentian’s challenge to the PTAB’s construction of the term “feature vector” and affirmed the determination that codewords in a prior art reference fall within that term.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC, affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Berkeley*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc., reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment that a set of profitability-calculation patent claims were eligible under Section 101. The CAFC held that the representative claim is directed to an abstract idea and that the inventive concept identified by the district court, a form of parallel computer processing, is not required by the claim language.