Posts in Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. on August 28, 2025,  providing guidance on the doctrine of prosecution laches. As the first U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision on prosecution laches for a patent issued after 1995—when patent terms changed from 17-years-from issuance to 20-years-from filing—some suspected the Federal Circuit might definitively end the prosecution laches doctrine. Although prosecution laches remains a valid equitable defense, the Federal Circuit placed significant limitations on its applicability.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director decides whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In the one precedential ruling in In Re Motorola Solutions, Inc., the CAFC—in an opinion authored by Judge Linn—rejected Motorola’s arguments that then-Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by deinstituting eight IPR petitions it filed against claims of Stellar LLC’s patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Thursday, in part clarifying its precedent on the interpretation of “by others” or “by another” under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e). The opinion was authored by Judge Linn. Merck Serono appealed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding claims of Merck’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,713,947 and 8,377,903 unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought by Hopewell Pharma Ventures. The Board found the claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two prior art references, “Bodor” and “Stelmasiak”.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. affirming most of a non-infringement ruling entered by the District of Delaware over accused transcatheter heart valve products with balloon-expandable frames. Addressing challenges to the district court’s claim construction raised by Aortic, the Federal Circuit determined that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer for the claim term “outer frame” through consistent interchangeable uses of that term made in connection with specific embodiments disclosed in the specification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday vacated and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that–despite rejecting arguments about an APJ’s alleged bias–could result in Centripetal Networks getting its request for a new PTAB panel of administrative patent judges in the face of alleged bias.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement for Coca-Cola Co. on Tuesday, agreeing with the court that the claimed invention required performing its steps in a particular order. Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC sued Coca-Cola for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,417,377, which is directed to a “System and Method for Creating a Personalized Consumer Product.”

Since its introduction in 2023, the pro-patent community has broadly supported what the draft Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) said. However, a potentially monumental, unrelated rider seems to have crept in on the last page of the 2025 version…. Why did the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on IP feel the need to slip in a rider on the judicially created non-statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (judicially created ODP) in a bill directed to patent eligibility?

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list denying a petition for writ of certiorari filed by patent owner EcoFactor to challenge this May’s en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granting a new damages trial in EcoFactor’s infringement case against Google. In dismissing EcoFactor’s cert petition, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the Federal Circuit has created a heightened Daubert standard for expert testimony on patent infringement damages and leaves patent owner EcoFactor without recourse for its due process claim against the Federal Circuit’s introduction of unbriefed contract interpretation theories in its en banc decision.

Last week, former United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Katherine Vidal filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute (PIPLI) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., urging the court to set aside the USPTO’s recently adopted “settled expectations” rule for discretionarily denying inter partes review (IPR) petitions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision in Brita LP v. International Trade Commission, affirming the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) finding that claims of a Brita patent for a water filtration system are invalid for lacking adequate written description and lack of enablement. The opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Prost and joined by Judges Reyna and Chen.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a pair of precedential decisions involving appeals from U.S. federal agency determinations on the patent rights of North Carolina-based energy demand response developer Causam Enterprises. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of Causam’s patent rights and mooted further infringement proceedings after finding that inconsistent positions on patent ownership taken by respondent ecobee in alternative forums did not present a constitutional due process issue.

A number of amici weighed in last week to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after- arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act.” The case arises from a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) January 2025 precedential decision reversing a district court’s determination that certain claims of a patent for Novartis’ heart failure drug Entresto were invalid for lack of written description, and affirming a finding that the claims were not shown to be invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement, or indefiniteness.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a decision in Rasmussen Instruments, LLC v. DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., vacating a United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts judgment and remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that Rasmussen Instruments lacked standing to bring the patent infringement lawsuit because it did not own the asserted patents at the time the suit was filed.

IPWatchdog has learned that Gilbert Hyatt intends to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine. The issue that will be teed up for potential en banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit is: Whether the defense of “prosecution laches” may bar a claim for issuance of a patent that meets the statutory criteria for issuance under the Patent Act. Fundamentally, Hyatt is likely to ask the entire Federal Circuit to consider the continued viability of this doctrine in the wake of Petrella v. Metro-GoldwynMayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), and SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017).