The Technology & Information Law Blog
Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell
·
Manufacturers of software-enabled equipment often make substantial revenue after the initial sale through maintenance, diagnostics, and repair. Technological access controls can help preserve that business by limiting who can reach the software embedded in the product. In Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance v. Library of Congress, No. 25-5328 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 2026), the D.C.…
·
For technology companies that patent foundational technology while continuing confidential research and development, the difficult question is not whether a patent disclosure is public. It is how far that disclosure reaches. The District of Delaware’s September 3, 2026 decision in Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. v. Goldstein, No. 1:25-cv-01256-JCG (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2026), illustrates why…
·
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 24-1707 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2026), affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that all challenged claims of a computer-memory patent were obvious, while leaving unresolved an important question about how far the Board may rely on prior art that was…
·
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Case No. 25-1236 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), affirmed a bench-trial finding that patents claiming crystalline cabozantinib (L)-malate satisfied the written-description requirement even though the specification expressly characterized only two crystalline polymorphs. The court concluded that the chemical name and formula of…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), draws an unusually clear line under 35 U.S.C. § 101 between claiming a technological objective and claiming a particular technological implementation. The court held claims broadly covering signal constellations “optimized” for improved capacity patent ineligible, while…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., Case No. 2025-1280 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), holds that a district court may, in appropriate circumstances, decide a fully briefed merits defense even after concluding that patent venue is improper. Because venue is a waivable protection belonging to the…
·
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLC, Case No. 2025-1006 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2026), draws an important boundary between patent litigation and commercial disputes involving patents. A state-law contract claim does not fall within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction merely because one party’s preferred interpretation would require deciding questions of prosecution…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires, Case No. 24-2378 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026), reinforces a significant obstacle facing organizations seeking judicial review of federal patent policy: neither resources spent responding to government conduct nor a member’s completed past injury necessarily creates Article III standing to seek prospective relief. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision…
·
A patent owner that makes no products of its own can still lose pre-suit damages when its licensees sell unmarked patented products. In VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 24-2226 (Fed. Cir. August 19, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent-infringement action because VDPP could not plausibly allege compliance with…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., Case No. 25-1371 (Fed. Cir. August 14, 2026), illustrates a recurring tension in patent law: the breadth that gives a patent claim commercial value can also make the claim more difficult to defend against prior art. Nielsen argued that prior art concerning…