Month: April 2026
-
Constellation Designs v. LG: Federal Circuit Splits on Patent Eligibility for Signal Constellation Claims
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) provides an important new roadmap for evaluating software and communications patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion draws a sharp distinction between claims that merely recite a desired optimization result and claims directed…
-
International Medical Devices v. Cornell: Federal Circuit Narrows Trade Secret Protection for Publicly Disclosed Concepts
The Federal Circuit’s decision in International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case No. 25-1580 -1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026), provides an important reminder that trade secret law cannot be used to reclaim ideas already placed into the public domain through patents. The dispute arose out of the highly specialized and somewhat unusual market for…
-
Teva v. Lilly: Federal Circuit Limits Amgen by Distinguishing Method-of-Use Claims from Composition Claims
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No. 24-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), marks one of the most important post-Amgen v. Sanofi patent decisions involving antibody claims and Section 112. In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Judge Prost, the court reversed a district court judgment…
-
VLSI v. Intel: Federal Circuit Enforces Litigation Stipulations and Narrows Prosecution Disclaimer
The Federal Circuit’s decision in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 24-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026), is a significant reminder that procedural decisions made early in patent litigation can later become outcome determinative. In a partially precedential opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, the court reversed multiple summary judgment rulings that had…
-
Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq: Federal Circuit Reinforces Broad Reach of the Pre-AIA On-Sale Bar
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, Case No. 24-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026), provides another reminder that pre-AIA § 102(b) remains a powerful invalidity tool, particularly when older commercial products can be reconstructed through circumstantial evidence, archived software, and corporate testimony. The case arose from technology relating to…
-
Fuente v. Vaporous: Federal Circuit Holds Mark Similarity Can Control the DuPont Analysis
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, Case No. 24-1460 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2026), offers a useful reminder that trademark disputes are not scored by tallying factors. Even where most of the DuPont factors favor likelihood of confusion, a sufficiently strong distinction between the marks themselves can still control…
-
ironSource v. Digital Turbine: Amended Claims Can Defeat Appellate Standing
The Federal Circuit’s decision in ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., Case No. 24-1460 (Fed Cir. Apr. 8, 2026), offers a pointed reminder that success at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not guarantee access to appellate review. For companies that regularly use post-grant proceedings as part of a broader patent strategy, the case…
-
Fortress Iron v. Digger Specialties: Federal Circuit Invalidates Patent When Inventorship Cannot Be Corrected
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., Case No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr 2, 2026), addresses a deceptively simple but practically significant question: what happens when everyone agrees a patent omitted a true inventor—but that inventor cannot be found? The answer is unforgiving. If the omitted inventor cannot be joined…