Tag: CAFC
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
US Patent No. 7,679,637 v. Google: Federal Circuit Rejects Functional Claims Under Section 101
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…
-
Barry v. DePuy Synthes: Federal Circuit Limits Daubert Exclusion of Patent Experts
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…
-
Crocs v. ITC: One Commission Decision Can Trigger Two Appeal Deadlines
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026), illustrates a jurisdictional trap in Section 337 proceedings: different portions of the same Commission determination can become final, and therefore appealable, at different times. The court dismissed as untimely Crocs’s challenge to a no-violation determination while…
-
Ethanol Boosting Systems v. Ford: Federal Circuit Enforces PTAB Institution Finality and Issue Preservation
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…
-
Micron v. Longhorn IP: When an $8 Million Bond Isn’t Appealable (Yet)
The Federal Circuit’s December 18, 2025 decision in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC is a reminder that not every high-stakes procedural ruling is immediately appealable, even when it carries an eight-figure price tag and raises substantial federal preemption questions. In dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the court sidestepped the merits entirely,…
-
Wonderland v. Evenflo: Federal Circuit Reassesses Infringement, Injunction, and Willfulness
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc. (Dec. 17, 2025) delivers a sweeping reset across several familiar but frequently contested areas of patent law: doctrine of equivalents limits, claim construction discipline, permanent injunction standards, and the evidentiary threshold for willfulness. The court affirmed much of the jury’s infringement verdict, but…
-
Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP: Assignments During Litigation Can Still Win Priority—If the Goodwill Comes Along
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, Appeal No. 2024-1407 (Dec. 10, 2025), offers a pointed reminder that trademark priority disputes often turn less on lofty equitable arguments and more on procedural discipline and the fundamentals of goodwill transfer. The court affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of…