Tag: claim construction
-
VLSI v. Intel: Federal Circuit Enforces Litigation Stipulations and Narrows Prosecution Disclaimer
The Federal Circuit’s decision in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 24-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026), is a significant reminder that procedural decisions made early in patent litigation can later become outcome determinative. In a partially precedential opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, the court reversed multiple summary judgment rulings that had…
-
Columbia University v. Gen Digital: $185M Cybersecurity Patent Verdict Reopened and Trial Counsel Sanctions Vacated
A pair of related decisions issued by the Federal Circuit in Trustees of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. , Nos. 24-1243, -1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar 11, 2026), address two issues that often arise together in complex patent litigation: the evolving scope of patent eligibility under Alice, and the limits of sanctions imposed on litigation…
-
Magnolia v. Kurin: Separately Listed Claim Elements Require Separate Structures
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., No. 2024-2001 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) reinforces a claim construction principle that appears simple but has far-reaching consequences in patent litigation: when claim elements are listed separately, the ordinary implication is that the elements correspond to separate structures. The decision also illustrates the…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Adnexus v. Meta: Federal Circuit Rejects Premature Claim Construction at Pleading Stage
On December 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the dismissal of Adnexus Inc.’s v. Meta Platforms, Inc., holding that the district court prematurely resolved a claim construction dispute under the guise of Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility. The decision is a pointed reminder that, while courts retain flexibility at the pleadings stage, they may not…
-
Akamai v. MediaPointe: “Best” and “Optimal” Still Demand Objective Boundaries
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., No. 2024-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), reinforces a familiar but still unforgiving rule of patent law: terms of degree such as “best” and “optimal” require objective boundaries anchored in the intrinsic record, not intuition, common sense, or counsel’s assurances that “it all tends…