Tag: IPR
-
Netlist v. Micron: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Ruling, Leaves Extra-Petition Prior Art Question Open
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 24-1707 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2026), affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that all challenged claims of a computer-memory patent were obvious, while leaving unresolved an important question about how far the Board may rely on prior art that was…
-
Nielsen v. TVision: Federal Circuit Links Claim Breadth to Analogous Art and Obviousness
The Federal Circuit’s decision in The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., Case No. 25-1371 (Fed. Cir. August 14, 2026), illustrates a recurring tension in patent law: the breadth that gives a patent claim commercial value can also make the claim more difficult to defend against prior art. Nielsen argued that prior art concerning…
-
Dental Monitoring v. Align: Federal Circuit Requires Written-Description Support for AIA Provisional Prior Art
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., Case No. 2025-1752 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2026), holds that a patent or published application cannot obtain the filing date of a provisional application for prior-art purposes under the America Invents Act merely because the provisional describes the subject matter being asserted as…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
ironSource v. Digital Turbine: Amended Claims Can Defeat Appellate Standing
The Federal Circuit’s decision in ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., Case No. 24-1460 (Fed Cir. Apr. 8, 2026), offers a pointed reminder that success at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board does not guarantee access to appellate review. For companies that regularly use post-grant proceedings as part of a broader patent strategy, the case…
-
Implicit v. Sonos: Federal Circuit Holds That Post-IPR Inventorship Corrections Cannot Undo Forfeited Arguments
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 25-853 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026), addresses a procedural question that arises occasionally in patent litigation but rarely receives sustained appellate attention: what happens when a patent owner corrects inventorship after a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision? The short…
-
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…