Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Tuesday, January 20, concluding that a district court abused its discretion in granting motions to exclude two of Dr. Mark A. Barry’s experts and granting judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to DePuy Synthes Companies. The panel included Judges Stark, Taranto and Prost and Judge Stark dissented. Barry’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358; 8,361,121; and 9,668,787 cover “surgical techniques and tools for treating spinal deformities, such as scoliosis, that cause vertebrae, which are the small bones forming the backbone, to twist out of alignment,” according to the opinion.

In the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my good friends Brad Close, who is the Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP, and Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and founder of Carmichael IP. Brad, Jim and I engaged in a candid conversation that provides our unvarnished assessment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where it started historically, where it is today, and where it may finally be headed. Bottom line: the PTAB is no longer the automatic execution squad it once was, but durable patent rights will require reform well beyond the agency level.

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to a petition filed by patent owner Hikma Pharmaceuticals, taking up Hikma’s appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling from June 2024 finding that Amarin Pharma plausibly alleged patent infringement against Hikma’s generic omega-3 fatty acid product. The decision indicates that the nation’s highest court may be willing to overturn the Federal Circuit’s finding that Hikma’s U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) -approved skinny label induced infringement in light of Hikma’s public statements about its generic product.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday 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 denying petitioner Apple Inc. an adequate opportunity to respond to a new claim construction argument raised by patent owner Smart Mobile Technologies LLC after the IPR was instituted. Apple challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, owned by Smart Mobile, which is described as a “portable and wireless enabled” network box designed to transmit and receive multiple data streams simultaneously. The technology at issue involves using a “plurality of antennas” to handle these simultaneous data streams. After instituting the IPR, the Board ultimately determined that Apple had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘083 patent were unpatentable as obvious.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that the mark SAZERAC STITCHES is likely to be confused with registered mark SAZERAC. Laurel Designs, LLC sought to register SAZERAC STITCHES for retail store and online services related to lighting, hardware, furniture and textiles, among others. The examiner rejected the application due to potential confusion with the mark SAZERAC, registered for “online retail store services featuring distilled spirits, beverage glassware, cocktail accessories, T-shirts, caps, postcards, and cocktail recipe books.” Laurel Designs appealed to the TTAB and the Board affirmed after analyzing three of the 13 DuPont factors and determining they favored a finding of confusion.

In a precedential ruling authored by Judge Stoll, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) said on Thursday that International Trade Commission (ITC) decisions that contain mixed findings of violations and no violations have distinct appeal windows as to the notices of appeal for the different findings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that refused to register trademarks relating  to New York Yankees outfielder Aaron Judge. The court found that the marks ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE were already associated with Judge and that the applicant, Michael P. Chisena could not establish priority. The case was decided by Circuit Judges Lourie and Hughes, along with District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC largely affirming the Southern District of California in a patent infringement case involving methods of managing parking lots. However, the Federal Circuit reversed some aspects of the district court’s rulings after finding abuse of discretion by excluding evidence related either to invalidating sales of the patented method or to bad faith patent infringement allegations against several customers using the alleged infringer’s accused system, including a regional airport.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that certain claims of Viasat Inc.’s data error correction patent are unpatentable as obvious. The opinion was authored by Judge Bryson. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed for inter partes review (IPR) of several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 and the PTAB held all of the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness. The Board ultimately found that any difference between Viasat’s claims and the key prior art reference (“Diggs”) “was a ‘semantic discrepanc[y]’ rather than a difference in substance.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court decision finding that Technology in Ariscale, LLC’s patent for a transmission signal decoding method was ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham.

The Supreme Court rejected equitable defenses of laches in infringement suits, reasoning that by enacting a statute of limitation, Congress left no statutory “gap” for equitable judgments on timeliness. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014), and SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods (2017). These precedential holdings should have also governed U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decisions on prosecution laches in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld (2021) and in Hyatt v. Stewart (2025), particularly after the multiple briefings in the Hyatt case on the binding effect of such holdings. Yet, nowhere in these decisions can one find any reasons why the principles in SCA Hygiene and Petrella should be inapplicable for precluding prosecution laches.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of SC Johnson & Son Incorporated in a case brought by Zip Top, Inc. The decision centered on the interpretation of a key term in a patent claim for reusable silicone containers. Zip Top appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that granted summary judgment of non-infringement to SC Johnson. Zip Top had asserted that SC Johnson’s Ziploc Endurables products infringed United States Patent No. 11,383,890, which discloses a process for making a container from molded silicone.

On December 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of three patents owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). The opinion was authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes.

What do affiliated corporate entities, non-fungible token (NFTs) and cinnamon-flavored whiskey have in common? They each were the subject of significant trademark rulings in 2025. Below, we review three cases with big implications for trademark law and what’s on the horizon for 2026.  

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its opinion in Micron Technology v. Longhorn IP. As reported earlier, the CAFC held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Longhorn’s appeal from a district court order that required Longhorn to post an $8 million bond to proceed with a patent infringement case. In imposing the bond, the district court had relied on Idaho’s “anti-troll” statute, which outlaws assertions of patent infringement made in “bad faith.” Also under that statute, if a court finds a “reasonable likelihood” that a patent owner has made a bad faith assertion, the court must require the patent owner to post a bond equal to its opponent’s estimated litigation costs and damages.