The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Apple v. ITC: When Prototypes Can Be Used to Establish a 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…

    Continue reading →


  • Gramm v. Deere: Reversal of Indefiniteness Finding for Means-Plus-Function Claim

    ·

    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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • 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…

    Continue reading →


  • Global Tubing v. Tenaris: “Smoking Gun” Isn’t Enough for Summary Judgment on Inequitable Conduct or Walker Process Fraud

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC, No. 2023-1882 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2026) delivers a sharp reminder that even apparently damning internal language will not short-circuit the demanding standards governing inequitable conduct and Walker Process fraud. In its opinion, the court vacated summary judgment of inequitable conduct and…

    Continue reading →


  • REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics: Recombinant AAV Host Cells Are Not Products of Nature

    ·

    On February 20, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying the scope of patent eligibility for genetically engineered compositions in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., No. 2024-1408 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2026). Reversing the District of Delaware, the court held that claims directed to cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules…

    Continue reading →


  • Learning Resources v. Trump: The Supreme Court Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize Tariffs

    ·

    I. Why This Case Matters Beyond the Courthouse For many Americans, tariffs are not theoretical instruments of foreign policy. They show up in shipping invoices, supplier negotiations, retail price adjustments, and quarterly earnings calls. Over the past several years, businesses large and small have had to account for sudden and substantial duties imposed on imported…

    Continue reading →


  • Genuine Enabling Tech. v. Sony: Means-Plus-Function Claims Demand Full Structural Accounting

    ·

    On February 19, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision in Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corporation, No. 2024-1686, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Sony. At first glance, the case involves familiar territory: PlayStation controllers, Bluetooth modules, and an aging patent directed to combining data streams. But the real…

    Continue reading →