Tag: CAFC
-
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…
-
Ollnova v. ecobee: Federal Circuit Clarifies Alice Step Two and Technical-Improvement Analysis
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC , Case No. 25-1045 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2026 ), delivers several significant holdings for patent litigators and technology companies. The opinion addresses jury unanimity in multi-patent trials, the proper role of juries in patent eligibility disputes under Section 101, and the distinction…
-
AGI SureTrack v. Farmers Edge: Federal Circuit Rejects Data-Collection Claims Under Section 101
The Federal Circuit’s decision in AGI SureTrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. , Case Nos. 2024-1730, 2024-1830 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2026), reinforces the limits of patent eligibility for claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and transmitting farming data using conventional computer components. The court affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims were ineligible under 35…
-
Insulet v. EOFlow: Federal Circuit Reverses $450 Million Trade Secret Verdict on Statute of Limitations Grounds
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co. Ltd., Case No. 25-1807 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2026), arrives just days after the court’s major trade secret decision in Versata v. Ford, continuing what is becoming a significant period of doctrinal development under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). While Versata focused heavily on…
-
Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Revives Unjust Enrichment as a Trade Secret Remedy
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case Nos. 24-1140, -1206, -1234 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2026), may become one of the most important trade secret damages opinions in recent years. In a significant rebuke to the district court’s narrow approach to damages, the court held that a trade…
-
A.L.M. Holding v. Zydex: Federal Circuit Clarifies Constitutional Standing for Patent Owners After Exclusive Licensing
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in A.L.M. Holding Company v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd., Case No. 25-1317 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2026), provides important clarification regarding constitutional standing in patent infringement suits where a patent owner has granted broad exclusive rights to a licensee but retained certain enforcement and economic interests. The opinion addresses a…
-
mCom v. City National: Federal Circuit Reins in Patent Fee Awards After Post-IPR Dismissal
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida , Case No. 24-2089 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2026),offers an important reminder that losing a patent case, even badly, does not automatically make a case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The opinion also reinforces that sanctions against counsel under…
-
Actelion v. Mylan: Federal Circuit Limits Equivalents Theory After Ambiguous pH Claim Construction
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 24-1641 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2026), provides an important reminder that scientific terminology in patent claims is not interpreted in a vacuum. Even seemingly straightforward numerical limitations can become highly contextual when industry standards, measurement conventions, and prosecution history intersect. In…