Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

In a win for TikTok, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(c) motion holding 10Tales, Inc.’s targeted content patent claims invalid as ineligible under Section 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Reyna. 10Tales sued TikTok and ByteDance in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030, which generally covers “a system for customizing or personalizing content based on user social network information.”

At IPWatchdog LIVE 2026, a panel on IP litigation strategy returned to a point experienced litigators know well: most IP cases are not won at trial. Instead, the decisive work often occurs much earlier, through pre-suit diligence, early motion practice, discovery strategy, and expert challenges that shape whether a case survives long enough to reach a jury.

A panel on day three of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 offered the IP community a candid look at how large operating companies actually evaluate and respond to patent assertions. The answers carry direct implications for every practitioner advising clients on the sell side of a transaction. The session, titled The Big Tech View on Patents and the Patent Market, featured Russell Binns (Allied Security Trust (AST)), Ola Adekunle (Google), Caroline Pinkston (Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)), and Dean Geibel (Samtec).

Nearly every operating company valued at greater than $20 billion in market capitalization is likely to be accused of patent infringement at some point. The high likelihood of utilizing another person or company’s patented technology led to an explosion of patent litigation activity over the last 30 years. Often, inventions emerge without a specific product in mind, and the strategy for the invention-turned-patent lacks a clear vision. This has been the way of invention since the patent offices were first formed and legal IP protection became a constitutionally ordained government program.

A panel on day one of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 didn’t mince words: the voluntary patent licensing ecosystem is functionally broken, and the IP community needs to understand why. That was the diagnostic consensus from the panel titled Patent Dealmaking, Monetization & Licensing: An Examination of Capital, Risk, and Deal Flow, moderated by Brian O’Shaughnessy (Dinsmore & Shohl) and featuring Michael Gulliford (Soryn IP Capital), Louis Carbonneau (Tangible IP), and Dan Kesack (WTW Insurance).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on Friday in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The CAFC determined that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc., proved that Apple violated Section 337 through the sale and import of certain Apple Watch models, ultimately “finding no error in the Commission’s domestic industry determination, its validity rulings, or its infringement findings.” The CAFC also held that the asserted patents were not unenforceable due to prosecution laches.

In 2008, a medical device company I represented, Datascope Corporation, won a hard-fought victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed a verdict of patent infringement rendered by a federal jury in Baltimore in a suit brought by Johns Hopkins University and its licensee against my client. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a decision in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., affirming a district court’s dismissal of AIT’s patent infringement suit against Salesforce for lack of constitutional standing. The court determined that the district court correctly concluded that Applications in Internet Time, LLC (AIT) had no exclusionary patent rights at the inception of the lawsuit. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief to cure the constitutional standing defect.

Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) on March 10 submitted a rules suggestion to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and its Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) Subcommittee, proposing an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(a)(1)(A) to require mandatory disclosure of TPLF in federal civil litigation.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by LED lighting developer Lynk Labs to challenge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling last January upholding the invalidation of Lynk Labs’ patent claims. The Supreme Court’s denial leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) statute.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., affirming a district court’s judgment as a matter of law of no infringement. The court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim with separately listed limitations requires separate corresponding structures, and because the accused product utilized a single structure for both limitations, it did not infringe as a matter of law.

China, the EU and the UK are quietly rewriting the rules on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in ways that strip value from U.S. innovators’ technology. As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finalizes its 2026 Special 301 Report, Washington has a rare chance to call out these trading partners for turning global licensing into a government-managed exercise that drives royalty rates below market value.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday partially reversed and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found Medivis, Inc. failed to show certain claims of Novarad Corp.’s patient imaging patent unpatentable as anticipated and also failed to show other claims unpatentable as obvious. The CAFC affirmed as to anticipation but reversed as to obviousness, holding that the Board relied on the wrong legal standard in finding no motivation to combine.