The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Netflix v. DivX: Federal Circuit Reaffirms the Rule of the Last Antecedent in Claim Construction

    ·

    Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC presents a deceptively simple question of grammar that ultimately determined the fate of an inter partes review. In a precedential opinion authored by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction, vacated its final written decision, and remanded for further proceedings. The court’s decision…

    Continue reading →


  • Apple v. Squires: Federal Circuit Holds NHK-Fintiv Is a General Statement of Policy Exempt from APA Notice-and-Comment

    ·

    On February 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Apple Inc. v. Squires, No. 2024-1864 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026), affirming that the USPTO Director’s NHK-Fintiv framework governing discretionary denials of IPR institution is a “general statement of policy” exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). The opinion closes what…

    Continue reading →


  • Ingevity v. BASF: Federal Circuit Affirms $84.8M Antitrust Verdict for Patent-Based Tying of Staple Goods

    ·

    On February 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit in Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 2024-1577, affirmed a jury verdict finding unlawful tying under the Sherman Act and upholding a $28.3 million damages award (trebled to approximately $84.8 million). The opinion, authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, is a consequential reminder…

    Continue reading →


  • GoTV v. Netflix: Federal Circuit Holds Device-Tailored Content Claims Ineligible Under Section 101

    ·

    On February 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., reversing a jury verdict and holding that three related GoTV patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Taranto, concluded that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of…

    Continue reading →


  • Range of Motion Prods v. Armaid: Narrow Design Patent Scope and the Growing Role of “Plainly Dissimilar”

    ·

    On February 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., No. 23-2427, reinforcing two increasingly important themes in design patent litigation: (1) aggressive narrowing of design patent scope through functionality-based claim construction, and (2) the continued willingness of courts to resolve infringement at…

    Continue reading →


  • Sound View Innovations v. Hulu: When Grammar and Logic Dictate the Order of Method Steps

    ·

    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…

    Continue reading →


  • US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC: Functional Claiming Meets Alice—Again

    ·

    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…

    Continue reading →


  • Barry v. DePuy Synthes: The Federal Circuit Draws a Line Between Daubert Gatekeeping and Jury Factfinding

    ·

    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…

    Continue reading →


  • Crocs v. ITC: When One Decision Becomes Two for Appeal Purposes

    ·

    On January 8, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a case that serves as a sharp reminder that Section 337 investigations can generate multiple appeal clocks even when the Commission issues a single written decision. The court dismissed Crocs’s appeal of the Commission’s no-violation finding as untimely,…

    Continue reading →


  • Ethanol Boosting Systems v. Ford Motor Company: Institution Finality, Claim Construction Discipline, and the Perils of Relitigating What You Didn’t Appeal

    ·

    The Federal Circuit’s December 23, 2025 decision in Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company delivers a comprehensive reminder of three recurring themes in modern PTAB litigation: the near-impenetrable bar to reviewing institution decisions, the limits of importing district court claim constructions into inter partes review, and the evidentiary deference accorded to the Board’s…

    Continue reading →