The Technology & Information Law Blog
Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell
·
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…
·
The Federal Circuit’s August 11, 2026 order denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., Case No. 23-2427 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 2026), leaves intact a precedential design patent decision that gives judges significant responsibility at two stages of infringement litigation. Courts may construe a design…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 2025-1752 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2026), holds that a patent or published application cannot obtain the filing date of a provisional application for prior-art purposes under the America Invents Act merely because the provisional describes the subject matter being asserted as…
·
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC, Case No. 2025-1121 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2026), illustrates that preliminary patent injunctions do not alter the governing standards of claim construction or equitable relief. Because a preliminary injunction can remove products from the marketplace long before infringement has been finally adjudicated, courts…