Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Tricam Industries, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. The decision held that Tricam’s ladders did not infringe Little Giant’s patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the district court correctly construed the key claim term “cavity.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AeroVironment, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by inventors Paul and David Arlton. The decision held that AeroVironment’s affirmative defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 covered all of its alleged infringing activities related to the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, concluding that the board did not err in finding claims of two Eagle View Technologies, Inc. patents unpatentable as obvious. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. had appealed the PTAB’s decisions, which held that claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 were obvious over a combination of prior art references. The patents, both titled “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” share a common specification and relate to systems and methods that allow estimates involving roofs on buildings to be created remotely. The patents teach remotely generating a roof estimate report by analyzing multiple aerial images of a building to determine the area, shape, and slope of the roof.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential decision affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Armaid Company, Inc. that its massage product did not infringe Range of Motion Products LLC’s (RoM’s) design patent claims. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and Chief Judge Moore delivered a dissent in which she claimed her court has caused “the legal frame of reference” in design patent law cases to become “askew.”

Panelists at IPWatchdog’s Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026 last week had some cynical views on chances for pending patent reform bills, while on Friday other experts offered insights into developments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with respect to review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases. Speaking on Thursday’s panel, titled “Capitol Hill & PTAB Politics: Innovation Policy, Congressional Oversight and Mid-term Elections,” panelists first addressed the chances of bills such as the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act advancing this year.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a district court decision that Sound View Innovations’ multimedia streaming patent claims were not infringed because Hulu’s “accused products do not perform the claim limitations in the required sequence.” The decision was authored by Judge Chen.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a district court decision finding that Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. (APT) had failed to sufficiently identify its trade secrets under either the state or federal trade secrets statutes. Business analytics company APT sued MarketDial, Inc. and John Stoddard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation and later added Morgan Davis as a defendant and added breach-of-contract and tort claims.

In 2014, the Supreme Court held that an invention is patent-ineligible if directed to “abstract ideas,” but that there was no need to define the term. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 221. Now, with the experience of more than a decade of confusing and unpredictable decision-making by lower courts trying to apply Alice, it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion…. The Court should grant the petition for certiorari filed by United States Automobile Association (USAA) in USAA v. PNC Bank on January 14, 2026. That will allow the Supreme Court to address the most basic of questions: What is an abstract idea?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied another petition for writ of mandamus seeking to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) so-called settled expectations doctrine, which was introduced by then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart. In the present case, Google sought mandamus relief after the USPTO denied its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of VirtaMove Corp.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 patent because “the patent[] ha[s] been in force for more than 14 years, creating strong settled expectations.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by requiring petitioner Guardant Health, Inc. to show a motivation to combine steps that were already disclosed in sequence in a single prior art reference.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential ruling in Orange Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd. reversing the Eastern District of Texas’ denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to defendant Autel. The Federal Circuit did not reach Orange’s appeal of Eastern Texas’ JMOL ruling of noninfringement after finding that Autel’s asserted prior art met every limitation of the asserted claims, leading the appellate court to overturn the district court on obviousness instead.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, January 22, issued a precedential decision affirming a district court ruling that granted Google’s motion to dismiss a patent owner’s infringement suit for failure to state a claim. The CAFC agreed with the district court that the software claims in question were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision sustaining an examiner’s rejection in an ex parte reexamination of claims of EcoFactor, Inc.’s patent relating to smart thermostat technology. Google filed for reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 in 2021 and an examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 9 and 11 through 16 in a non-final office action as unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Patent No. 2004/0117330 (“Ehlers”) and U.S. Patent No. 2005/0159846 ) (“Van Ostrand”) and claims 2 and 10 as unpatentable over Ehlers, Van Ostrand, and a third patent, No. 6,789,739 (“Rosen”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding filed by Apple, Inc.. The court concluded that the Board was precluded from finding the challenged claims of a patent owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC patentable, where a related patent with substantially similar claims had been found unpatentable in a prior IPR.