Tag: CAFC
-
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…
-
Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific: Federal Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict on Anticipation and the Meaning of “Fiber”
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case Nos. 2024-2062 and 2024-2063 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2026), reverses a patent-infringement judgment involving drug-eluting coronary stents and illustrates how a jury verdict cannot survive when the asserted distinctions from the prior art are absent from…
-
Ridge Corp. v. Kirk NationaLease: Federal Circuit Rejects Preliminary Injunction Based on Claim Construction and Speculative Harm
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ridge Corp. v. Kirk NationaLease Co., Case No. 25-1254 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2026), reverses a preliminary injunction against competing manufacturers of roll-up truck doors, holding that substantial questions of noninfringement and an inadequately supported claim of irreparable harm prevented the patent owner and its licensee from obtaining extraordinary pretrial…
-
Intellectual Pixels v. Sony: Federal Circuit Clarifies What Remains Open After a PTAB Remand
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case No. 2024-2174 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2026), clarifies when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may reconsider factual issues after an appellate remand. Affirming the invalidation of server-based image-rendering patent claims, the court held that the mandate rule binds the Board…
-
Wyeth v. AstraZeneca: Federal Circuit Invalidates Cancer-Treatment Claims for Failure to Enable Patient Dosing
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026), affirms that a patent claiming daily administration of a therapeutically effective drug dosage to a patient must teach more than laboratory activity and broad projected dosage ranges. The specification must provide sufficient guidance for a skilled…
-
TrackTime v. Amazon.com: Federal Circuit Requires Contextual § 112(f) Analysis for Software Claim Terms
The Federal Circuit’s decision in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2024-1102 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2026), clarifies how courts must determine whether software claim language invokes means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), particularly when a claim recites “executable program code” configured to perform specified operations. The court vacated a judgment that…
-
Otsuka v. Hetero Labs: Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Injunction but Requires Rule 65(c) Bond
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, Case No. 2025-2016 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2026), upheld a preliminary injunction delaying the launch of a generic version of Nuedexta but vacated the district court’s decision allowing the patent owner to obtain that injunction without posting security under Federal Rule of…
-
Enanta v. Pfizer: Federal Circuit Rejects Provisional Priority Based on an Alleged Typographical Error
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), holds that a later patent cannot claim the filing date of a provisional application when the provisional expressly discloses a different chemical range, even if the applicant contends that the difference resulted from a typographical error.…
-
Ironburg v. Valve: Federal Circuit Clarifies How Parties Must Prove IPR Estoppel Under §315(e)
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2024-2088 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2026), limits when a patent owner may use inter partes review estoppel to prevent an accused infringer from asserting prior-art invalidity grounds in district court. The court held that a reference is not necessarily discoverable merely because…
-
Hafeman v. Google: Federal Circuit Bars Sotera Institution Challenges and Tightens Nexus Proof
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Hafeman v. Google LLC, Case No. 24-1600 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 5, 2026) addresses three recurring issues in inter partes review practice: the scope of appellate review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), the limits of claim construction arguments raised after PTAB proceedings have concluded, and the evidentiary burden required to establish…