Year: 2026
-
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…
-
Ascendis v. BioMarin: Federal Circuit Rejects Procedural Reset of Section 1659 Stay Deadline
There is a quiet but persistent tension in patent litigation involving the ITC: the statute promises efficiency, but the structure invites gamesmanship. Section 1659 is supposed to prevent duplicative litigation by forcing district courts to stand down when the same issues are being litigated at the ITC. But that protection is not automatic—it must be…
-
Apple v. ITC: Federal Circuit Holds Prototypes Can Establish a Section 337 Domestic Industry
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission , Case No. 2024-1285 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 19, 2026), delivers a clear and practical message: a domestic industry under Section 337 does not require a finished commercial product. Iterative prototypes—supported by testing, engineering records, and witness testimony—can be enough. That holding represents a meaningful…
-
Gramm v. Deere: Federal Circuit Reverses Means-Plus-Function Indefiniteness Ruling
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Gramm v. Deere & Co., No. 24-1598 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026) addresses a recurring issue in patent litigation: when a means-plus-function claim is sufficiently supported by corresponding structure in the specification. The case arises from agricultural technology used to maintain the proper height of a crop-harvesting header as the…
-
Columbia University v. Gen Digital: $185M Cybersecurity Patent Verdict Reopened and Trial Counsel Sanctions Vacated
A pair of related decisions issued by the Federal Circuit in Trustees of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. , Nos. 24-1243, -1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar 11, 2026), address two issues that often arise together in complex patent litigation: the evolving scope of patent eligibility under Alice, and the limits of sanctions imposed on litigation…
-
Implicit v. Sonos: Federal Circuit Holds That Post-IPR Inventorship Corrections Cannot Undo Forfeited Arguments
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 25-853 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026), addresses a procedural question that arises occasionally in patent litigation but rarely receives sustained appellate attention: what happens when a patent owner corrects inventorship after a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision? The short…
-
Exafer v. Microsoft: Federal Circuit Rejects Per Se Rule Against Using Unaccused Products in Patent Royalty Base
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-2296 (Fed. Cir. Mar 6, 2026), addresses a recurring and often misunderstood issue in patent damages law: whether a reasonable royalty analysis may rely on a royalty base tied to products or services that are not themselves accused of infringement. The CAFC rejected a…
-
Magnolia v. Kurin: Separately Listed Claim Elements Require Separate Structures
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., No. 2024-2001 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) reinforces a claim construction principle that appears simple but has far-reaching consequences in patent litigation: when claim elements are listed separately, the ordinary implication is that the elements correspond to separate structures. The decision also illustrates the…