Posts in Litigation

On September 1, a federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio J.M. Smucker Co.‘s trademark and trade dress claims over its crustless, crimped-edge peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. The ruling allows that was filed last October against Trader Joe’s private-label “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches” to proceed to discovery and, potentially, a merits determination on whether a sealed, circular sandwich shape can function as a protectable trademark.

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 256, one can only correct an inventorship error when the underlying facts and the affected parties can actually be identified, and when the statutory correction procedure can be completed. AI-assisted invention is starting to produce cases where none of that is possible: the development record shows plenty of human activity, but nothing in it establishes which person actually conceived the claimed invention. After Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 2024-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026, that kind of gap can turn into a validity problem, not just a paperwork one.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Biofer S.p.A. v. Vifor (International) AG affirming a judgment of non-infringement by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in favor of Swiss Pharmaceutical company, Vifor (International) AG. The dispute centered on the construction of a claimed pH range recited in a patent covering a process for producing iron-sugar complexes used to treat iron deficiency.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Vieth v. MOM Enterprises, LLC affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of Elaine and Dr. Reinhold Veith’s patent claims to methods of administering vitamin D to human beings. The Federal Circuit agreed that most of the claim construction and prior art arguments raised by the Vieths on appeal were forfeited for not being properly developed in the proceedings below, and also dismissed the Vieths’ contentions that they had established nexus between industry praise for its products and the challenged method claims.

On September 1, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to hold that using copyrighted written works to train large language models (LLMs) is fair use, arguing that a contrary result would distort copyright law, suppress innovation and weaken U.S. competitiveness and national security. The statement was filed in reference to the multidistrict copyright litigation against OpenAI, although it specifically addressed claims by The New York Times and said its reasoning also applies to the related cases involving book authors and publishers.

Many Worlds 2T Innovations LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against OpenAI OpCo, LLC, alleging that OpenAI’s artificial intelligence products and services infringe five AI patents covering personalized search, vector-based retrieval, recommendation systems and probabilistically controlled content generation. The complaint, filed August 31, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, seeks a jury trial, monetary damages in the form of past and continuing royalties, enhanced damages for alleged willful infringement, and an injunction prohibiting continued infringement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all challenged claims of a Netlist computer memory patent unpatentable as obvious. The court rejected Netlist’s arguments that the Board’s findings lacked substantial evidentiary support and that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in reaching its conclusions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Monday in Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., affirming a district court finding that certain patent claims covering a cancer treatment satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a). The court also granted a motion to dismiss a separate portion of the appeal as moot and vacated the underlying district court judgment on that issue.

Former U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas has returned to private practice as a partner in A&O Shearman’s IP litigation practice as of today. Albright announced in April that he would leave the Western Texas bench by the end of August. Nominated to the federal judiciary during the first Trump Administration, Judge Albright earned a reputation of thoughtfulness and fairness in the application of patent law among plaintiff- and defendant-side lawyers arguing in his courtroom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday handed SpaceTime3D, Inc. mixed results in two nonprecedential decisions involving graphical user interface patents challenged by Apple Inc. and Google LLC, with the outcomes turning largely on differences in the wording of related claims. In Apple Inc., Google LLC  v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., the court affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 but finding claims 14-18 obvious. In a separate appeal, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC, the CAFC affirmed the Board’s determination that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 and 9,696,868 were obvious.

On Friday, an amicus brief was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of major trade associations in the computer software, automotive, retail and other industries, urging the Court to grant Tesla’s petition for writ of certiorari following the denial of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging patent claims owned by self-driving technology company Granite Vehicle Ventures. The industry groups claim that the Court’s review is necessary to address so-called “patent trolls” and policies adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that effectively eliminate the use of IPRs to combat these allegedly bad actors.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a patent infringement suit on both improper venue and patent ineligibility grounds, holding that the district court was not required to stop its analysis after determining the venue was improper. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. against KAIFI LLC arising from a dispute over a patent settlement agreement, transferring the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLC, Circuit Judge Chen authored the opinion for a panel that included Circuit Judges Taranto and Schall, concluding that the underlying disagreement over settlement contract language did not necessarily raise a substantial question of patent law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions today in related appeals arising from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings between Apple Inc. and Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. In the case, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, the CAFC affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that Apple failed to prove certain claims of two Smart Mobile patents unpatentable as obvious, while vacating and remanding a separate portion of the same judgment that had found other claims obvious. In the companion appeal, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision rejecting Apple’s obviousness challenge to a third related patent. Circuit Judge Stark authored both opinions for a panel that included Circuit Judges Reyna and Hughes.