Month: August 2026
-
Constellation Designs v. LG: Federal Circuit Draws Section 101 Line Between Optimization Claims and Specific Signal Constellations
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…
-
AML IP v. Bath & Body Works Direct: Federal Circuit Allows Section 101 Dismissal After Finding Patent Venue Improper
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…
-
T-Mobile US v. KAIFI: Patent Settlement Dispute Falls Outside Federal Circuit Jurisdiction
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…
-
US Inventor v. Squires: Federal Circuit Rejects Standing to Challenge Patent “Right to Exclude” Language
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…
-
VDPP v. Volkswagen: Settlement Licenses Can Trigger Patent-Marking Consequences Under § 287
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…
-
Nielsen v. TVision: Federal Circuit Links Claim Breadth to Analogous Art and Obviousness
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…
-
Range of Motion v. Armaid: Federal Circuit Declines to Rework Judge-Jury Roles in Design Patent Infringement
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…
-
Dental Monitoring v. Align: Federal Circuit Requires Written-Description Support for AIA Provisional Prior Art
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…
-
Socket Solutions v. Import Global: Federal Circuit Demands Doctrinal Discipline Before Granting Preliminary Patent Injunctions
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…