Year: 2025
-
Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP: Prosecution Disclaimer in a Later Continuation Can Narrow an Entire Patent Family
On October 17, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a detailed and consequential opinion in Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, affirming a judgment of non-infringement while also affirming the district court’s rejection of indefiniteness challenges. The case provides a clear reminder that arguments made during prosecution of a later-filed continuation application can narrow…
-
IQE PLC v. Newport Fab (Tower Semiconductor): When Patent Filings Trigger Anti-SLAPP Protection
On October 15, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in IQE PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC d/b/a Jazz Semiconductor et al., addressing two questions that rarely intersect so directly: (1) whether denials of California anti-SLAPP motions are immediately appealable in cases within the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, and (2) how California’s anti-SLAPP framework…
-
Inland Diamond Prods v. Cherry Optical: PTAB Fact Findings Do Not Preclude District Court Validity Challenges
On October 15, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a summary judgment of invalidity in Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., No. 24-1106, holding that the district court improperly applied issue preclusion based on prior PTAB inter partes review decisions. The ruling reinforces a principle the court has been developing with increasing…
-
Brita v. ITC: Functional Genus Claims Fail Written Description and Enablement
The Federal Circuit’s October 15, 2025 decision in Brita LP v. International Trade Commission delivers a clear warning to patentees who rely on broad, functionally defined genus claims without commensurate disclosure. Affirming the ITC, the court held that claims covering any gravity-fed water filter media achieving a particular performance metric failed both the written description…
-
Causam v. ecobee: Federal Circuit Addresses PTAB Standing, Due Process, and Claim Construction
On the same day the Federal Circuit dismissed Causam’s ITC appeal as moot, it issued the companion decision that explains why the appeal became moot in the first place. In Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Technologies ULC, No. 24-1958 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), the court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written…
-
Causam v. ITC: Standing Secured, But the Case Still Slips Away
On October 15, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1769, that delivers a curious combination of vindication and defeat. On the one hand, the court held that Causam did, in fact, own the asserted patent and therefore satisfied Article III standing to pursue its appeal.…
-
US Inventor v. USPTO: Standing Doctrine Closes the Courthouse Door on AIA Rulemaking Challenges
The Federal Circuit’s decision in US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 2024-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), reinforces a familiar but increasingly consequential theme in administrative patent law: access to judicial review turns first, and often last, on Article III standing. Even when a dispute implicates the scope of the…
-
Rex Medical v. Intuitive Surgical: The Federal Circuit Draws a Hard Line on Apportionment
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. presents a familiar but still sobering outcome: a jury finds infringement and validity, awards substantial damages, and yet the patentee ultimately recovers nothing more than nominal damages. The case underscores, once again, that proof of infringement is only half the battle. Without a…
-
Focus Prods v. Kartri Sales: When Restriction Practice Becomes Prosecution History Disclaimer
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc. delivers a wide-ranging opinion that touches nearly every corner of intellectual property litigation: venue after TC Heartland, prosecution history disclaimer, multi-defendant appellate waiver, trademark standing, trade dress functionality, willfulness, and fee shifting. But at its core, the case stands as…
-
Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp.: When “Highly Similar” Means Consistently Similar Across the DuPont Factors
The Federal Circuit’s September 25, 2025 decision in Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp. offers an important reminder that the DuPont likelihood-of-confusion factors are not a cafeteria menu. Once the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board makes a factual determination that services are “highly similar” under one factor, it cannot quietly narrow that conclusion when analyzing…