Tag: patent law
-
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…
-
Wyeth v. AstraZeneca: Federal Circuit Invalidates Cancer-Treatment Claims for Failure to Enable Patient Dosing
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026), affirms that a patent claiming daily administration of a therapeutically effective drug dosage to a patient must teach more than laboratory activity and broad projected dosage ranges. The specification must provide sufficient guidance for a skilled…
-
TrackTime v. Amazon.com: Federal Circuit Requires Contextual § 112(f) Analysis for Software Claim Terms
The Federal Circuit’s decision in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2024-1102 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2026), clarifies how courts must determine whether software claim language invokes means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), particularly when a claim recites “executable program code” configured to perform specified operations. The court vacated a judgment that…
-
Otsuka v. Hetero Labs: Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Injunction but Requires Rule 65(c) Bond
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, Case No. 2025-2016 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2026), upheld a preliminary injunction delaying the launch of a generic version of Nuedexta but vacated the district court’s decision allowing the patent owner to obtain that injunction without posting security under Federal Rule of…
-
Enanta v. Pfizer: Federal Circuit Rejects Provisional Priority Based on an Alleged Typographical Error
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), holds that a later patent cannot claim the filing date of a provisional application when the provisional expressly discloses a different chemical range, even if the applicant contends that the difference resulted from a typographical error.…
-
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…
-
Hikma v. Amarin: Supreme Court Narrows Induced Infringement Claims Against Skinny-Label Generics
A Significant Win for Generic Drug Manufacturers The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., Case No. 24-889 (Jun. 4, 2026), is one of the most important patent law decisions of the 2025-2026 Term. While the case arises from the pharmaceutical industry’s unique Hatch-Waxman framework, its significance extends well…
-
Ollnova v. ecobee: Federal Circuit Clarifies Alice Step Two and Technical-Improvement Analysis
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC , Case No. 25-1045 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2026 ), delivers several significant holdings for patent litigators and technology companies. The opinion addresses jury unanimity in multi-patent trials, the proper role of juries in patent eligibility disputes under Section 101, and the distinction…
-
AGI SureTrack v. Farmers Edge: Federal Circuit Rejects Data-Collection Claims Under Section 101
The Federal Circuit’s decision in AGI SureTrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. , Case Nos. 2024-1730, 2024-1830 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2026), reinforces the limits of patent eligibility for claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and transmitting farming data using conventional computer components. The court affirmed summary judgment that the asserted claims were ineligible under 35…