Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

Recent cases involving design patents on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) highlight significant developments and issues. There have been five decisions in 2025 and several more are anticipated. They address infringement, invalidity, estoppel, priority and Section 337’s Domestic Industry requirement. There is also developing jurisprudence on prior art for design patent infringement, as well as questions such as when are two designs plainly dissimilar, making their way through the courts.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement  in NG LLC v. CreatedHair Designs, LLC, which centers on the proper construction of a key claim term and the application of prosecution history estoppel. U.S. Patent No. 10,945,477 and U.S. Patent No. 10,881,159 are owned by NG and concern a wig grip apparatus comprising a mesh element. Claim 1 specifies that “‘the mesh element includes a forward periphery’ and ‘the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd. affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that upheld claims 1-27 of Largan Precision Co., Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,696,519, which Motorola Mobility LLC had challenged via inter partes review (IPR).

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a pair of orders dismissing petitions for mandamus relief filed by patent owner VirtaMove seeking vacatur of transfer orders issued by the Western District of Texas. Applying “common sense,” the Federal Circuit rejected VirtaMove’s attempts to use the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 100-mile rule for assessing venue transfer in such a way that would prevent a significant number of witnesses from participating in trial proceedings close to home.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential ruling in Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation that vacated in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that had denied Realtek Semiconductor Corporation’s motions for attorneys’ fees, costs, and sanctions in patent litigation brought by Future Link Systems, LLC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential ruling in Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, reversing the district court’s denial of a new trial and remanding . The CAFC agreed with the district court’s finding that defendants Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP’s noninfringement theory was “improper and prejudicial,” but disagreed that it was harmless error. The decision was authored by Chief District Judge Renée Marie Bumb of the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Stoll on the panel.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite. Brian McFadden appealed the PTAB’s decision holding his U.S. Patent Application No. 16/231,749 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. The application relates to improvements for information exchange in social media networks and specifically claims a “system and methods for controlling and optimizing information distribution between users in an information exchange.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed two decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) rejecting trademark applications in Case No. 24-2181 and Case No. 24-2183 filed by pro se applicant Nagarajan Duraisamy. In both cases, the Board affirmed the examining attorney’s refusals, concluding that the applications did not comply with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requirements for identifying goods and services, fee payment, entity designation and mark description.

On Friday, August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Hyatt v. Stewart affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s ruling on remand that inventor Gil Hyatt’s efforts to obtain patent rights from four patent applications filed in 1995 were barred by prosecution laches. Ruling that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s affirmative defense was available in Hyatt’s civil action to obtain patent rights under 35 U.S.C. § 145 under the law of the case, the Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that federal jurisdiction under Section 145 extended to the entirety of the Board’s decision, including parts of those rulings in which the Board reversed examiner rejections.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part a district court decision that held various claims of Sonos’ patents directed to controlling media playback systems invalid and unenforceable. Notably, the CAFC reversed the district court’s finding with respect to unenforceability due to prosecution laches, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Google was prejudiced by Sonos’ alleged delay in claiming the subject matter at issue via continuation practice. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the first appeal of a derivation proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA) litigated at the Board. Although the Federal Circuit corrected the PTAB on the proper analysis for derivation proceedings in light of the AIA’s related first-to-file provisions, the appellate court found no reversible error in the Board’s determination that Marc Selner could not have derived the invention at issue from GHS’ inventor because Selner proved an earlier conception of the invention.

A split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that affirmed the rejection of Erik Brunetti’s applications to register the mark FUCK for various goods and services. The precedential decision was authored by Judge Dyk and Judge Lourie dissented.

On Friday, August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in HC Robotics v. International Trade Commission affirming agency determinations that HC Robotics’ material delivery solution infringed upon robotics delivery patent claims owned by OPEX Corporation. In so ruling, the Federal Circuit dismissed HC Robotics’ argument that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) erred in construing several claim terms from patents asserted by OPEX in the Section 337 infringement proceeding.

On Friday, August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of Judge Pauline Newman’s case against U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore for suspending her from judicial duties. However, the D.C. Circuit noted that “Judge Newman has posed important and serious questions about whether these Judicial Conduct and Disability Act proceedings comport with constitutional due process principles and whether her ongoing suspension comports with the structure of our Constitution.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday partially affirmed and partially reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that had denied holding a non-party in contempt of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and awarded less than the requested damages amount in a patent infringement suit.