Case ClIPs

  • PTAB Reaffirms Broad’s Priority in CRISPR-Cas9 Interference

    In Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., Patent Interference No. 106,115, Paper 2915 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2026), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), on remand from the Federal Circuit, reaffirmed that the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Broad”) have priority over The Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (“CVC”) with respect to a single-RNA CRISPR-Cas9 system that functions in eukaryotic cells.View

  • What Is Prior Art? Navigating Section 102, Case Law, and AI

    Under the America Invents Act, what qualifies as prior art is measured against a claimed invention’s effective filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) encompasses inventions “patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” before that date, and § 102(a)(2) adds U.S. patents and published applications that name another inventor and were effectively filed earlier. View

  • Federal Circuit: Provisional Application Must Support Later Claims

    In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent is not entitled to its provisional application’s priority date where the provisional application fails to provide adequate written description support for what is claimed in the patent.View

  • Federal Circuit Affirms 'Without Assistance' Reading

    In Hafeman v. Google LLC, 177 F.4th 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating claims of Hafeman’s patents as obvious.View

  • Federal Circuit Rules Chemical Properties Measured at Standard Conditions

    In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2024-1641 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2026), the Federal Circuit held that a claimed chemical property or characteristic is construed as being determined under standard conditions, e.g., standard temperature, where the specification does not otherwise specify the measurement conditions.View

  • Federal Circuit Affirms § 101 Ineligibility, Vacates Fee Denial

    In AGI SureTrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., Nos. 2024-1730, 2024-1830 (Fed. Cir. June 2, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment that asserted claims directed to a relay device for tracking farming operations were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, while separately vacating the district court’s sua sponte denial of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and remanding for further consideration.View

  • Rule 36 Affirms § 101 Invalidity, Sidesteps Party Challenge

    In Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy, No. 24-1801 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2025), the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed, under Rule 36, a district court judgment holding U.S. Patent No. 6,537,227 (the ’227 patent) invalid as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.View

  • ‘About’ Indefinite Where Intrinsic Evidence Is Inconsistent

    In Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp., No. 2024-2160 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321 are invalid as being indefinite.View

  • Federal Circuit Addresses Claim Construction of Functional Language “configured to”

    The Federal Circuit addressed the construction of functional claim limitations in In re Blue Buffalo Enters., Inc., No. 2024-1611, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 872 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) (nonprecedential). View

  • Presumption that Modifier Applies to Nearest Term in Patent Claim Interpretation

    In Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, No. 2024-1541 (Fed. Circ. 2026), the Federal Circuit clarified how to interpret ambiguous claim language involving modifiers. View

  • Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Construction Ruling Emphasizing Intrinsic Evidence and Plain and Ordinary Meaning

    In Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc., No. 2023-2043 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the district court properly construed disputed claim terms of patents at issue based on the use of those terms in the patent specification as well as the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms.View

  • Fed. Cir. Revives Adnexus Patent Infringement Claim Against Meta

    In Adnexus, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2024-1551 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing Adnexus’s patent infringement claims against Meta for failure to state a claim since a plausible theory of infringement was provided. View

  • Federal Circuit Reverses Indefiniteness Ruling

    The Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision invalidating claims of Canatex’s U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122 for indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis.View

  • Flawed Expert Evidence Can Limit Patent Damages to Nominal Amounts

    In Rex Medical, LP v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Nos. 2024-1072, 2024-1125 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when reducing the jury's $10 million damages award to a nominal $1.View

  • Extra Claim Limitations may be Applied if Other Options Explicitly Disclaimed

    In Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, Fortress Fence Products LLC (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that additional claim limitations may be applied to claims if other options are explicitly disclaimed in the specification or during prosecution.View

  • Terms Analogous to 'Nonce' Terms May Require Structural Support

    In Fintiv Inc. v. Paypal Holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit indicated that black box recitation of structure may operate as a substitute for means plus function under § 112 ¶ 6. View

  • Dupont Scope Must be Interpreted Consistently

    In Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., No. 2023-2143 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 25, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision to sustain an opposition proceeding and refuse registration of the standard character mark and design mark for ASPIRE BANK for banking and financing services.View

  • Federal Circuit Affirms First-Filer Determination

    In Global Health Solutions LLC (Burnam) v. Selner, No. 23-2009 (Fed. Cir. August 26, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not commit reversible error in its application of the independent corroboration requirement. View

  • Federal Circuit Remands Due to Incorrect Claim Construction

    In FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, No. 2024-2335 (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that a claim term in an asserted patent cannot be construed solely based on disclosures in its provisional application and an unasserted patent in the same patent family. View

  • Allowed Claim Amendments Do Not Ensure Written Description Support

    In Mondis Technology Ltd. et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., Nos. 2023-2117, 2023-2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that there is no presumption that claim amendments made during prosecution that result in allowance are supported by adequate written description. View

  • Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB on Anticipation, Remands Obviousness

    The Federal Circuit, in SIGRAY, INC. V. CARL ZEISS X-RAY MICROSCOPY, INC., 137 F.4th 1372 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), reversed the PTAB’s anticipation holding and remanded the PTAB’s obviousness decision. View

  • Fed. Cir. Vacates $300M Verdict Against Apple

    In a patent dispute between Optis Cellular Technology and Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a $300 million jury verdict in favor of Optis and ordered a new trial.View

  • Federal Circuit Clarifies Meaning of “Consisting Essentially Of”

    In this case, the Federal Circuit held that, depending on context such as prosecution history, amending patent claims to use the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” may limit the claims to exclude other elements that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention as claimed. View

  • Fed. Cir. Invalidates Atorvastatin Hemicalcium Salt Claim

    Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and invalidated dependent claim 6 directed to the hemicalcium salt of atorvastatin because claim 6 depended from parent claim 2 limited to atorvastatin acid.View

Top