Tag: patent law
-
Satius Holding v. Samsung: Clear Claims Can Still Be Invalid When They Cover the Impossible
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2025-1446 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2026), illustrates a counterintuitive principle of patent law: the clarity of a patent claim can establish precisely why it is invalid. The court held that a claim expressly covering a scientifically impossible method of transmitting…
-
NCS Multistage v. Nine Energy Service: Federal Circuit Applies Sanho to AIA § 102(b)(1)(B) and Vacates Patent Judgment
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Service, Inc., Case No. 2025-1000 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2026), vacated an infringement and no-invalidity judgment after identifying two claim-construction errors and rejecting the patent owner’s attempt to use an earlier private sale as a defensive “public disclosure” under the America Invents Act.…
-
TexasLDPC v. Broadcom: Federal Circuit Clarifies All Substantial Rights and Limits Rule 19 Joinder
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc.v, Case No. 2025-1074 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2026), is most significant for clarifying which retained patent rights matter when an exclusive license separates record ownership from commercial and enforcement control. The court held that TexasLDPC could sue Broadcom, LSI, and Avago without joining Texas…
-
Moskowitz v. Globus: Limiting Preambles and the Cost of Leaving Claim Terms Unconstrued
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc., Case No. 24-1696 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026), illustrates two different ways claim scope can become fixed before appeal. For U.S. Patent Nos. 8,353,913 and 9,889,022, the intrinsic record made the preamble term “universal” part of the claimed invention. For U.S. Patent…
-
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…
-
Exelixis v. MSN Labs: Federal Circuit Upholds Crystalline Salt Genus Under § 112 Written Description
The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Case No. 25-1236 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), affirmed a bench-trial finding that patents claiming crystalline cabozantinib (L)-malate satisfied the written-description requirement even though the specification expressly characterized only two crystalline polymorphs. The court concluded that the chemical name and formula of…
-
Constellation Designs v. LG: Federal Circuit Draws Section 101 Line Between Optimization Claims and Specific Signal Constellations
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), draws an unusually clear line under 35 U.S.C. § 101 between claiming a technological objective and claiming a particular technological implementation. The court held claims broadly covering signal constellations “optimized” for improved capacity patent ineligible, while…
-
VDPP v. Volkswagen: Settlement Licenses Can Trigger Patent-Marking Consequences Under § 287
A patent owner that makes no products of its own can still lose pre-suit damages when its licensees sell unmarked patented products. In VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 24-2226 (Fed. Cir. August 19, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent-infringement action because VDPP could not plausibly allege compliance with…
-
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…
-
Range of Motion v. Armaid: Federal Circuit Declines to Rework Judge-Jury Roles in Design Patent Infringement
The Federal Circuit’s August 11, 2026 order denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., Case No. 23-2427 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 2026), leaves intact a precedential design patent decision that gives judges significant responsibility at two stages of infringement litigation. Courts may construe a design…