Federal Circuit Cases

Subscribe to Federal Circuit Cases via RSS

This case addresses two primary issues (i) whether the district court erred in construing the claim term “composition” in FMC’s pesticide patents to mean only “stable compositions,” based on disclosures found in a provisional application and a related patent, even though the asserted patents contained no stability language and (ii) whether the district court misapplied the preliminary injunction standard in rejecting Sharda’s anticipation and obviousness defenses.

Continue Reading Deletions Matter: The Federal Circuit Rejects Importing Language from Provisional and Related Patent into FMC’s Asserted Claims

This case addresses whether the district court correctly applied prosecution disclaimer to (i) import a negative limitation into a child patent claim based on prosecution of a related parent patent with materially different claim language, and (ii) read a further negative limitation about a guide wire’s path into two claims based largely on examiner statements and applicant conduct in an ancestor patent’s prosecution and later IPR-related briefing.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reins In Prosecution Disclaimer in Maquet v. Abiomed

Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On April 18, 2025, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the patents were ineligible under § 101. 

Continue Reading Not A Categorical Ban: Federal Circuit Narrowed Spectrum of Patent Eligible Machine Learning Claims

In Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of conception and reduction to practice as related to the written description of multiple patent applications.

Continue Reading PTAB Overly Relied on Statements of Doubt in Determining Conception and Reduction to Practice in Interference Proceedings

This case addresses whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Google under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after deeming EscapeX’s suit “exceptional,” denying EscapeX’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend the fee judgment based on purported “newly discovered evidence,” and imposing additional fees against EscapeX and its counsel, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for filing a frivolous post-judgment motion.

Continue Reading No Mulligans: Frivolous Post-Judgment Motion Triggers § 1927 Sanctions After § 285 Award

In Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a finding of design patent infringement due to an erroneous claim construction. The panel also reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), finding the accused products failed to perform a function required by the asserted utility patent.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upends Two Infringement Judgments

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the close of Federal Circuit review for this phase of a high-profile patent dispute and confirms the boundaries on IPR estoppel set by the Federal Circuit.

Continue Reading Final Word on IPR Estoppel: Rehearing Denied in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403.

Continue Reading Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars

Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity in favor of the patent owner, Super Lighting, finding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding CH’s relevant evidence pertaining to establishing the on-sale bar. As a result, the case was remanded for a new trial on validity of the patents.

Continue Reading Erroneous Exclusion of On-Sale Bar Evidence: Federal Circuit Revives Invalidity Challenge in Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Patent Dispute