Tag: CAFC
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…