Month: January 2026
-
Sound View v. Hulu: Federal Circuit Requires Claimed Method Steps in a Specific Order
On January 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement based on the required sequence of steps in a method claim. While the panel rejected the district court’s narrowing construction of “buffer,” it nonetheless held that the asserted claim required a specific…
-
US Patent No. 7,679,637 v. Google: Federal Circuit Rejects Functional Claims Under Section 101
On January 22, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement complaint against Google at the pleading stage, holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision reinforces a familiar theme in modern eligibility jurisprudence: claims drafted at a high level of…
-
Barry v. DePuy Synthes: Federal Circuit Limits Daubert Exclusion of Patent Experts
On January 20, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying the boundary between judicial gatekeeping under Daubert and the jury’s role as factfinder in patent infringement trials. In Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies, the court reversed the exclusion of two key experts and vacated a judgment as a matter of law entered after…
-
Crocs v. ITC: One Commission Decision Can Trigger Two Appeal Deadlines
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), illustrates a jurisdictional trap in Section 337 proceedings: different portions of the same Commission determination can become final, and therefore appealable, at different times. The court dismissed as untimely Crocs’s challenge to a no-violation determination while…