Posts in IP News

Trade secrets occupy a unique position among the major forms of intellectual property. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are, by design, defined and publicly registered, and can be consulted to determine exactly what is claimed. In contrast, trade secrets depend on their being undisclosed. This creates a structural problem the moment a trade secret owner goes to court. Because they are secret, they cannot be identified in public filings without destroying the very subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. On the other hand, defendants must understand what the secrets are and what they’ve allegedly misappropriated. In addition, the court needs to know what the case is about to manage it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all challenged claims of a content delivery patent owned by VL Collective IP, LLC (VideoLabs) unpatentable. The court rejected VideoLabs’ argument that the Board misconstrued a key claim term, and found that neither the claim language nor the patent specification supported the narrower reading VideoLabs proposed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday, August 7, affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating certain claims of WAG Acquisition, LLC’s patent for a streaming media technology patent as anticipated. Judge Stark authored the opinion of the court. 

On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) chose to issue a precedential opinion formally holding that there is no “presumption of irreparable harm” in preliminary injunction proceedings in patent cases. The court acknowledged that this conclusion should have been apparent from the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay  Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393-94 (2006).

This week on Other Barks & Bites: the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal of malpractice claims stemming from a pattern of missed case deadlines in a trademark infringement proceeding; the Eleventh Circuit becomes the latest regional circuit court to hold that keyword bidding itself cannot constitute trademark infringement; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a precedential ruling clarifying the framework for examining patents based on obviousness-type double patenting concerns; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Thursday in Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. Squires, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,015 unpatentable. The dispute centered on how the Board construed the claim term “mounted to” in an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, doing business as TenPoint Crossbow Technologies.

An Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s ) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) today issued a decision on sua sponte rehearing reversing a PTAB decision that had itself reversed an examiner’s rejection of claims for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). The decision has been designated as precedential and was authored by USPTO Director John A. Squires, PTAB Chief Judge Kalyan Deshpande, and PTAB Acting Deputy Chief Judge Michelle Ankenbrand.

As the institution rate of inter partes reviews (IPRs) has plunged under U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires, parties have increasingly turned to ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) to challenge patents. The number of requests for EPRs has skyrocketed. The number of EPR requests more than doubled between 2020 (198 requests) and 2025 (481 requests). See USPTO Reexam Statistics. Based on the number of requests for EPRs (831) assigned a filing date through Q3 of 2026, we are on track to have more than 1,100 requests for EPRs filed in FY2026. See USPTO Operational Statistics.

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, has introduced a bill to designate courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building located at 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC, as the “Pauline Newman Courtroom”. Room 201 is the main courtroom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued an opinion authored by Chief District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that Lululemon had shown the challenged claims of Nike, Inc.’s patent to be unpatentable.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a published ruling reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s entry of permanent injunction for distiller Jack Daniel’s in the long-running trademark case involving VIP Products’ Bad Spaniels dog toy. This latest chapter in the decade-plus-long case remands the decision back to the district court with orders to enter judgment in favor of defendant VIP Products after finding that Jack Daniel’s did not meet its burden to show dilution by tarnishment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday affirming a judgment of non-infringement entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in a dispute concerning generic versions of the topical pain patch ZTlido. The panel of Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes, ruling per curiam, upheld the district court’s construction of the term “dissolving agent” and its determination that Aveva Drug Delivery Systems’ proposed generic product did not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Tuesday, authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore, vacating a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction (PI) for Socket Solutions, LLC that had barred Import Global from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States its Neat Socket® product.

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its latest study detailing the economic contributions of industries heavily reliant upon intellectual property rights, concluding that such IP-intensive industries contributed 44% of the United States’ entire gross domestic product (GDP) in 2024. Despite several key findings reflecting the rising value of IP rights to employee wages and job creation, the USPTO’s report noted significant trade deficits run by the United States relative to their foreign counterparts in commodity exports across several IP-intensive industries.