Posts in Federal Circuit

What value is a patent that expires before it issues? Until recently, that question seemed wholly academic. In In re Forest, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) answered it directly: A patent that issues after its expiration date has no value; it provides neither exclusionary rights nor provisional rights. In the court’s view, the applicant has no cognizable interest in the patent or the application on which it would be based.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday affirming a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The appeal, brought by the Regents of the University of Michigan against Leica Microsystems, Inc., concerned the construction of claim language describing a “supercontinuum” white light pulse used in fluorescence detection technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision denying Pfizer’s motions to amend two patent claims. This is Pfizer’s a second appeal following a March 2024 precedential CAFC ruling that partially vacated and remanded a previous PTAB decision in favor of Sanofi Pasteur, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today reversing in part and vacating in part a series of district court rulings that had invalidated a patent covering a firearm cartridge magazine housing. Chief Judge Moore wrote for the court, joined by Circuit Judges Stoll and Stark, finding the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming erred by treating certain claim terms as indefinite.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling for Samsung Electronics, finding the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and that substantial evidence supported its findings. Samsung filed for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of G+ Communications’ U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130, which is titled “Method and device for uplink control signal transmission, user terminal, and storage medium.” The PTAB ultimately found that U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 (“Kwak”) anticipated all of the challenged claims, and G+ Communications appealed.

Kahoot AS! filed a petition for writ of certiorari on July 24 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine for denying inter partes review (IPR) requests is authorized under the patent statute. The petition also asked the High Court whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of that question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today reversing a jury verdict from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that had found Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) liable for infringing a patent owned by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System (UT) covering drug-releasing biodegradable polymer fibers. The Federal Circuit concluded that BSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both invalidity and non-infringement.

In the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what. Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 2024-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), holds that if an inventorship error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256, the patent is invalid — full stop, no intent required. Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-11631 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025), holds that if an inventorship omission was intentional, the entire patent family is unenforceable for inequitable conduct — the Therasense penalty at full weight.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming in part and reversing in part a district court ruling that had found four patents covering digital picture frame technology ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The court remanded one patent claim to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings and affirmed the ineligibility finding as to the remaining three patents at issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Cartessa Aesthetics LLC violated Section 337 via infringement of Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was about to expire. The CAFC also vacated the underlying ITC determination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming a district court’s dissolution of a preliminary injunction (PI) and denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Schedule A design patent dispute over foldable fans. Circuit Judge Hughes wrote for the majority, joined by Circuit Judge Prost, while Circuit Judge Stoll dissented from the portion of the opinion addressing the merits of the design patent analysis.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a decision for a patent owner against Apple, concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made several errors in finding the claims of the speech recognition patent at issue were not shown to be unpatentable. Zentian Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789, which is titled “Speech recognition circuit and method.” Apple petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of multiple claims of the patent, arguing in relevant part that “claim 1 was obvious over prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”) or the combination of Smyth and U.S. Patent No. 6,832,194 (“Mozer”) and that claim 29 was obvious over Smyth, Mozer, and several other references.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, Inc., vacating a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of LifeCore Fitness, doing business as Assault Fitness. The court found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California relied on an overly restrictive claim construction, vacating and remanding the decision for further proceedings.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating claims of Woodway’s treadmill patent after rejecting the patentee’s central argument that the Board had improperly construed the claim term ‘running surface.’