Posts in IP News

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC vacating a district court’s summary judgment rulings on both inequitable conduct and a Walker Process fraud claim. The court determined that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on both issues and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Public Affairs, on Wednesday, February 25, issued a press release announcing that a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiner will pay $500,000 to settle allegations that she worked “personally and substantially” on a number of patent applications “in which she held a direct financial stake.” Daxin Wu is alleged to have examined at least nine applications for companies she held stock in between January 2019 and May 2022. Specifically, the DOJ said that she reviewed applications for companies in which she held more than $300,000 and $140,000 worth of stock, respectively, and that she reviewed applications for companies that were competitors of a firm in which she owned more than $900,000 worth of stock.

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC has managed to defend its patent at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with a split panel on Thursday affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that Tesla failed to prove Charge Fusion’s electric vehicle (EV) charger claims unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen, who was joined by Judge Reyna, while Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued an order in In re Kahoot! AS, denying another petition for writ of mandamus that challenged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director’s refusal to institute an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on “settled expectations” of the patent owner. The per curiam order was issued by Circuit Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), affirming the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. And it means the Federal Circuit should rule in favor of Director Squires and against Volkswagen in one of the more constitutionally focused writs of mandamus challenging Squires and his use of discretion to decide institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs). And there is no need for an oral argument.

A battle is currently being waged in a federal court in Washington D.C., where two prominent inventors are accusing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of singling out and stalling their pending patent applications, which might otherwise be allowable, for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards. The inventors allege that the USPTO has resurrected a program that started in 1994, that purportedly justified such added scrutiny, which the USPTO claims to have discontinued in 2015.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued three orders denying mandamus petitions filed by inter partes review (IPR) petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Each of the petitioners was seeking relief from the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute their IPR petitions, following decisions that denied institution of the IPRs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a summary judgment ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York finding the claims of a natural language processing patent asserted against Amazon.com, Inc. invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and CF Dynamic Advances LLC originally brought the lawsuit against Amazon for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,177,798, which discloses a “method for processing a natural language input provided by a user.”

In the high-velocity M&A landscape of 2026, the technical closing of a transaction is often mistaken for the finish line. For M&A counsel, however, the signing of a purchase agreement is merely the beginning of a critical risk window. While the contract handles the equitable transfer of rights between parties, the statutory transfer – the formal recordal of title in every global jurisdiction – is where the deal’s value is most vulnerable.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released its assessment of the Biden Administration’s “Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights.” A bipartisan combination of Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) along with Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) asked the GAO to evaluate the guidelines on three bases: what the guidelines did and how they were developed; stakeholder views on the draft; and the potential impact of the guidelines.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on February 20 affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings upholding claims of Netlist, Inc.’s patent.

Earlier today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a blog post following up to a comment submitted by the Chamber late last week to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) urging the agency to rescind proposed price controls that would require pharmaceutical companies to offer drugs to Medicare on a “most-favored-nation” basis. The Chamber argues that applying foreign pricing controls on U.S. drug sales would have a deleterious impact on both American innovation and patient access to lifesaving treatments, and that such measures exceed CMS’ authority established by its governing statute.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision on Friday reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment that REGENEXBIO, Inc.’s patent claims were ineligible as directed to a natural phenomenon. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found that REGENXBIO’s and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania’s gene therapy patent claims were directed to a natural phenomenon and therefore patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the unanimous CAFC reversed that decision, thereby reviving REGENEXBIO’s infringement suit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and Sarepta Therapeutics Three, LLC.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit concludes that expert testimony did not properly support the patent owner’s equivalency argument; the World Intellectual Property Organization issues a report showing that technology diffusion is spreading across the world at historically high rates; Boeing returns its defense and security headquarters to St. Louis from the D.C. region; Senators Thom Tillis and Adam Schiff send letters seeking better transparency measures in standards development and answers regarding a controversial restatement of copyright laws; and more.