The Technology & Information Law Blog

Analysis by Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Global Tubing v. Tenaris: Federal Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment on Inequitable Conduct and 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

    ·

    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 goods under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,…

    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 →


  • Netflix v. DivX: When Grammar Determines Patent Claim Scope

    ·

    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 Upholds NHK-Fintiv Against APA Rulemaking Challenge

    ·

    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: When Patent Licensing Crosses Into Antitrust Tying

    ·

    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 v. Hulu: Federal Circuit Requires Claimed Method Steps in a Specific Order

    ·

    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 →


Archives

Popular Tags