219 decisions · Patent law

Claim Construction Decisions

Claim construction decides what the words of a patent claim mean, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history. It often decides infringement and validity.

New to this area? See our District court litigation page.

New decisions are added every weekday. Get the free daily digest by email.

  1. ITC · Oct. 16, 2026Certain Storage Containers and Toolboxes, Organizers, Component Boxes, Coolers, and Accessories Used Therewith; Inv. No. 337-TA-1409 (Violation)The Commission found a section 337 violation by Klein Tools as to the '026 and '952 patents, affirming the FID in part, and determined to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. It has not reached a final…
  2. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 14, 2026Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's PGR final written decision holding all challenged claims of UPL's '727 patent unpatentable as anticipated by Godoy and Tobler (claims 1, 3-10) and obvious over De Oliveira in view of Wiglesworth,…
  3. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  4. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLCThe Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly narrowed the ordinary meaning of "joined" in claim 1 of the '324 patent and that the accused products met that limitation. The court otherwise affirmed summary judgment of…
  5. Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not indefinite because their scope was reasonably certain even though they covered a scientifically impossible embodiment. The court nevertheless affirmed invalidity because the claims were…
  6. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The order does not address any patent-law merits issue.
  7. ITC · Sept. 30, 2026Certain Vehicle Space Guards; Inv. No. 337-TA-1509 (Violation)The ALJ granted summary determination of no violation of section 337 because the Drop Stop product does not infringe any asserted claim of the '314 patent, the only patent in the investigation. He construed the term 'a contoured vehicle…
  8. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANYThe Federal Circuit denied both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judge Dyk dissented, arguing the panel's enablement analysis for method claims conflicts with Amgen and permits overbroad functional claiming.
  9. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026In re Medical Components, Inc.The Federal Circuit denied mandamus. MedComp did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief based on an alleged conflict between the Utah court's post-remand ruling and the mandate in a different AngioDynamics appeal.
  10. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because there was no final judgment: Rule 54(b) did not permit a partial final judgment resolving only some asserted claims of the same patent while other asserted claims of…
  11. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the earlier Wang ’808 application did not provide written-description support for the claimed “formed spirally” limitation, so Wang ’808 qualified as prior art. Because substantial…
  12. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026In re WSOU Investments LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's § 103 rejection, holding that the Board applied the same claim construction used in the earlier IPR and that substantial evidence supported the finding that Traversat suggested the disputed…
  13. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 25, 2026Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of “feature vector” to include codewords/vector-quantized representative feature vectors because claim 1 covers quantities “extracted and/or derived” from a digital audio stream.…
  14. PTAB Director Review · Sept. 24, 2026Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.The Director denied institution of Biocon’s PGR challenging claims 1–38 of Regeneron’s biologics/pharmaceutical Patent No. 12,168,036 because the petition was filed more than nine months after patent issuance and therefore was barred by…
  15. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 21, 2026BERKELEY*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because they are directed to the abstract idea of calculating profitability and do not recite an inventive concept. The alleged improvement—parallel processing inside…
  16. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 17, 2026Carnegie Institution of Washington v. Fenix Diamonds LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the fee and expense award, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case exceptional based on objectively baseless infringement positions after claim construction and…
  17. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 17, 2026In re Incept LLCThe Federal Circuit held that the Board applied an unreasonably broad construction of “flow barrier” under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. Because that erroneous construction drove the Board’s conclusion that the only…
  18. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 15, 2026Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side must bear its own costs.
  19. ITC · Sept. 14, 2026Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor II; Inv. No. 337-TA-1457 (Violation)The Commission found no violation of section 337 as to all four asserted patents (the '026, '301, '478 and '616 patents) and terminated the investigation. No exclusion order issued.
  20. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026NCS Multistage Inc. v. TCO Group ASThe Federal Circuit affirmed the contributory-infringement judgment, holding that TCO forfeited its appellate challenges by not preserving them in post-trial briefing and could not relitigate a claim construction it had sought below. The…
  21. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 14, 2026NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Service, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the district court misconstrued both “internal diameter” and “casing string,” and that TCO’s August 2012 sale of the TDP-PO tool to Apache and Apache’s use were prior art as a matter of law. The court vacated…
  22. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Medical, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the preambles of the asserted '913 and '022 patent claims are limiting and that the district court correctly construed “universal.” It also held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s…
  23. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026Caddo Systems, Inc. v. JetBrains Americas, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s judgment under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no written rationale or identification of the specific patent-law issue decided.
  24. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 11, 2026ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim constructions, holding that "cooperating service provider" means a service provider that agrees to provide non-blocking bandwidth and that "non-blocking bandwidth" means bandwidth…
  25. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 4, 2026WIRELESSWERX IP, LLC v. AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by party agreement under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  26. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 4, 2026INARI MEDICAL, INC. v. IMPERATIVE CARE, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the agreed appeals under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  27. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 3, 2026Biofer S.p.A. v. Vifor (International) AGThe Federal Circuit affirmed the construction requiring the pH to be maintained between 7.0 and 9.0 throughout the oxidation step, and therefore affirmed non-infringement based on Biofer’s concession under that construction. The court…
  28. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 2, 2026Vieth v. MOM Enterprises, LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness determination for claims directed to delivering vitamin D by applying one drop of a vitamin D/MCT composition to an object for sucking or licking. The court upheld the Board's…
  29. Fed. Cir. · Sept. 2, 2026Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determinations for all challenged claims. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s motivation-to-combine and reasonable-expectation findings, and the Board adequately explained its…
  30. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 31, 2026Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board across the board: claims 1-13 remained not proven unpatentable, and claims 14-18 remained unpatentable. The court upheld the Board's claim constructions, its refusal to consider Apple's reply-stage…
  31. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 31, 2026SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determinations. The court rejected SpaceTime3D’s claim-construction arguments for the disputed ordering and replacement limitations and held that substantial evidence supported the…
  32. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLCThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the dispute turned on state-law contract interpretation and did not necessarily raise a substantial patent-law issue under Gunn. The court transferred the appeal to…
  33. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 28, 2026T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLCThe Federal Circuit held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the dispute was a Texas contract-interpretation issue that did not necessarily raise a substantial patent-law question under Gunn. The court transferred the appeal to…
  34. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 27, 2026Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's implicit construction of "multiplexed signals" and its finding that Apple failed to prove the challenged multiplexing claims unpatentable. The court vacated and remanded the Board's obviousness…
  35. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 27, 2026Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by party agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.
  36. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 27, 2026Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of "multiplexing signals" as "combining multiple signal streams into one." Applying that construction, substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Apple failed to prove the…
  37. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 26, 2026Welytok v. Director of the USPTOThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute after the appellant did not file the required brief on time. The order does not address any patent-law merits issue.
  38. ITC · Aug. 26, 2026Certain Polyvinylidene Fluoride Resins; Inv. No. 337-TA-1439 (Violation)The ALJ found a violation of Section 337 as to U.S. Patent No. 8,337,725, concluding that claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are infringed, that Respondents did not prove invalidity, and that a domestic industry is in the process of being…
  39. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 26, 2026Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the Board erred by construing the “request to provision” and “activate” limitations broadly enough to cover management of existing services; read in light of the specification, the claim requires adding a new…
  40. ITC · Aug. 20, 2026Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof II; Inv. No. 337-TA-1460 (Violation)The Commission vacated the ALJ's construction of "nicotine concentration" and the resulting grant of summary determination of invalidity and no violation, and remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings. No violation finding was made on…
  41. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 19, 2026Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.The Director denied institution of PGR2026-00023 challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the wood-treatment/performance-chemicals field because Viance failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically majority…
  42. PTAB Director Review · Aug. 17, 2026Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.The Director denied institution of Viance’s PGR challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the chemical/wood-treatment technology area on discretionary grounds, applying NHK-Fintiv under § 314(a) and also invoking § 325(d). The…
  43. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 17, 2026Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The court did not reach any merits issue.
  44. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 14, 2026Jacki Easlick, LLC v. CJ EmeraldThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no likelihood of success on design-patent infringement and no irreparable harm. It also affirmed denial of reconsideration because the…
  45. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 14, 2026Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness determination. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Tian was reasonably pertinent analogous art and that the asserted combinations taught the challenged limitations…
  46. ITC · Aug. 13, 2026Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same II; Inv. No. 337-TA-1441 (Violation)The Commission found a violation of section 337 by Caihong, CHOT, CSOT and TCL as to claims 3, 6, 8 and 12 of the '491 patent and claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the '498 patent. It issued a limited exclusion order covering the 615 Accused…
  47. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 11, 2026Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.The Federal Circuit denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving in place the panel affirmance of summary judgment of design-patent noninfringement. The concurrence emphasized that existing precedent permits courts to construe…
  48. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 10, 2026VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the claim phrase “response to the content status” does not require the response to be triggered by the terminal’s sending of content-status information. Because VideoLabs’ challenge to the Huston obviousness…
  49. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 7, 2026In re WAG Acquisition, LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that Hill anticipated claims 1 and 4. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings on the claimed transmission requests, serial-number tracking in the player buffer, and receipt at a…
  50. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 6, 2026Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of "mounted to" as "connected to, either directly or indirectly." Because Ravin did not separately challenge anticipation under that construction, the court affirmed the Board's § 102…
  51. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 5, 2026Nike, Inc. v. lululemon athletica canada inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision that all challenged claims were unpatentable, including anticipation by Amano and obviousness over Amano combined with Gorman or Flach. The court rejected Nike’s…
  52. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 4, 2026SCILEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. AVEVA DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.The Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement judgment, holding that the claimed “dissolving agent” must both dissolve lidocaine and maintain it in a non-crystalline state in the finished patch. Under that construction, Aveva’s ANDA…
  53. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 4, 2026Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLCThe Federal Circuit held that the district court’s likelihood-of-success analysis rested on erroneous constructions of “backplate” and “pin.” It vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded, also noting that any presumption of…
  54. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 3, 2026Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. v. Tecan Genomics, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.
  55. ITC · Aug. 3, 2026Certain Nanolaminate Alloy Coated Metal Parts and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1431 (Violation)The Commission reviewed the final ID in its entirety and found no violation of section 337 because Modumetal failed to prove infringement of the asserted claims of the '419 and '613 patents. The investigation was terminated and no…
  56. Fed. Cir. · Aug. 3, 2026MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple Inc.The Federal Circuit rejected the district court's construction limiting the '949 patent family's 'secure' terms to IPSec and 'unique identity' to IPSec-specific SPI values. It also reversed the indefiniteness ruling for the '581 patent…
  57. Fed. Cir. · July 31, 2026Regents of the University of Michigan v. Leica Microsystems, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the claimed “said supercontinuum white light pulse” refers back to a “supercontinuum white light pulse comprising an entire spectrum of white light.” Because the accused products used discrete,…
  58. Fed. Cir. · July 31, 2026RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit granted the motion to the extent it dismissed the appeal. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs.
  59. Fed. Cir. · July 30, 2026ON24, Inc. v. Webinar.net, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment without a written opinion under Rule 36. The judgment does not identify the patent-law issues decided or the panel’s reasoning.
  60. Fed. Cir. · July 30, 2026Schmeisser GmbH v. AC-Unity d.o.o.The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by finding the distance-related claim terms indefinite; the terms were facially clear, supported by the specification and prosecution history, and measurable with conventional tools.…
  61. PTAB Director Review · July 29, 2026Biofrontera Inc., Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH, Biofrontera Pharma GmbH, and Biofrontera AG v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.The Director granted Patent Owner's request for review, vacated the Final Written Decision, and dismissed the Petition. The ITC had already decided, on the same claims, prior art and obviousness grounds, that the claims were not shown…
  62. Fed. Cir. · July 27, 2026Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCThe Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeal. Each party will bear its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate.
  63. Fed. Cir. · July 27, 2026Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp.The Federal Circuit held that Boston Scientific was entitled to JMOL that asserted claims 1, 11, 17, and 26 were anticipated by the Song prior-art patent. The court also held that Boston Scientific was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement…
  64. Fed. Cir. · July 24, 2026Amsted Rail Company, Inc. v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit held that the Board did not err in construing claim 1 to impose no required order between sensing/measuring accelerations and filtering them. Substantial evidence supported the Board's obviousness findings for both the…
  65. Fed. Cir. · July 22, 2026MIDAS GREEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GREEN REVOLUTION COOLING, INC.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs.
  66. Fed. Cir. · July 21, 2026APPLE INC. v. ZENTIAN LTD.The Federal Circuit held that the Board legally erred by requiring the prior art to accommodate a large-vocabulary acoustic model when the claims required only an acoustic model and covered smaller abbreviated models. The Board also erred…
  67. Fed. Cir. · July 21, 2026Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determination. The Board did not need to construe “thick film layer,” Slingshot forfeited a separate teaching-away argument, and substantial evidence supported motivation to combine and…
  68. Fed. Cir. · July 21, 2026Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the district court adopted an overly restrictive construction of "substantially prevent" by effectively requiring complete prevention of movement in the dispreferred direction. The prosecution history did not…
  69. Fed. Cir. · July 17, 2026Schindler v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment without opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. The judgment provides no merits reasoning or identified patent-law issue.
  70. Fed. Cir. · July 17, 2026Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determination. The court rejected Woodway’s effort to recast the Board’s prior-art fact findings as an implicit claim construction and found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s…
  71. ITC · July 17, 2026Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; Inv. No. 337-TA-1432 (Violation)The ALJ found a § 337 violation only as to U.S. Patent No. 11,490,004, concluding that Samsung infringed claims 1 and 10, Maxell proved technical and economic domestic industry, and Samsung failed to prove invalidity. No violation was…
  72. Fed. Cir. · July 16, 2026Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of “physically separated proximal to the bondpad” as measured relative to the end of the trace, not the heater arrays. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s obviousness findings,…
  73. PTAB Director Review · July 15, 2026Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.The Director granted Patent Owner's request, reversed the Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-21 unpatentable as obvious, and held that Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability. The Board abused its discretion…
  74. Fed. Cir. · July 15, 2026ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of "biometric signal" as "a physical or behavioral biometric attribute" and upheld the Board's finding that the asserted prior-art combination did not teach the enrollment-process…
  75. Fed. Cir. · July 13, 2026Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the Board erred by analyzing Burrows in isolation rather than the asserted obviousness combinations, adopted a construction of “unexpected response” without giving Google adequate APA notice and opportunity…
  76. Fed. Cir. · July 13, 2026Ridge Corp. v. Kirk NationaLease Co.The Federal Circuit held that defendants raised substantial questions of noninfringement under three claim limitations and that plaintiffs had not shown likely irreparable harm. The district court therefore abused its discretion in…
  77. ITC · July 10, 2026Certain Balloon Dilation Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1449 (Violation)ALJ Hines found a violation of section 337 as to all three asserted patents (the 878, 472 and 847 patents). She found asserted claims 1, 14, 20, 22 and 23 of the 878 patent, claim 1 of the 472 patent and claims 1 and 11 of the 847 patent…
  78. Fed. Cir. · July 9, 2026In re GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB. The Rule 36 judgment provides no reasoning or substantive discussion of the patentability issues.
  79. Fed. Cir. · July 9, 2026In re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed because substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Brannon disclosed the disputed fluid-reservoir and bypass limitations. The claim did not require the reservoir limitation to be satisfied at the…
  80. Fed. Cir. · July 9, 2026WYETH LLC v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LPThe Federal Circuit affirmed JMOL of invalidity for lack of enablement under § 112(a). The claims required daily administration of a therapeutically effective unit dosage to a patient, and the specifications did not teach how to determine…
  81. Fed. Cir. · July 7, 2026In re Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLCThe Federal Circuit denied Lambeth's mandamus petition, holding Lambeth did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief from the district court's order staying the remanded infringement case pending ex parte reexamination of the…
  82. Fed. Cir. · July 2, 2026TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLCThe Federal Circuit vacated the indefiniteness ruling on the '978 patent because the district court did not adequately analyze, under intervening Dyfan precedent, whether the full “executable program code” limitations recited sufficient…
  83. Fed. Cir. · July 2, 2026Berall v. Teleflex Medical Inc.The Federal Circuit adopted the district court's construction of "mounted on" as "fastened to the exterior of" and affirmed summary judgment of no literal or doctrine-of-equivalents infringement. The court also affirmed the transfer…
  84. Fed. Cir. · July 1, 2026Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs LimitedThe Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the claim terms “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” in the asserted weight-to-weight ratio refer to the form administered, including salt forms, supporting Otsuka’s…
  85. ITC · June 29, 2026Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor II; Inv. No. 337-TA-1457 (Violation)The ALJ found no violation of Section 337 as to any of the four asserted patents (the 026, 301, 478 and 616 patents). Infringement was found for claim 1 of the 026 patent, claims 1 and 8 of the 301 patent and claim 11 of the 616 patent,…
  86. Fed. Cir. · June 29, 2026Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The court did not reach any merits issue.
  87. Fed. Cir. · June 26, 2026POWER2B, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties’ agreement. Each side will bear its own costs.
  88. PTAB Director Review · June 25, 2026Facebook, Inc. v. Express MobileOn delegated Director Review of the Board's Final Written Decision on Remand, the panel vacated that decision and issued a new Final Written Decision holding that Petitioner had not shown claims 1-4 and 6 unpatentable. Under the September…
  89. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of Apple’s IPR petition against the ’098 patent in the high-speed memory-module technology area under § 314(a) discretionary authority. The denial turned on Apple’s unexplained inconsistent…
  90. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion for Apple’s IPR against WeCrevention’s memory-related Patent No. 10,998,017, finding Apple’s PTAB claim-construction position on “input/output unit” irreconcilable with its…
  91. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of Apple’s IPR petitions against WeCrevention’s high-speed memory chip module patents under discretionary § 314(a), applying Revvo and Infineon rather than reaching the prior-art merits. The denial rested…
  92. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00243 challenging WeCrevention’s U.S. Patent No. 12,154,652 in the computer-memory module technology area under discretionary authority, effectively § 314(a), based on Apple’s inconsistent…
  93. PTAB Director Review · June 24, 2026Apple Inc. v. WeCrevention, Inc.The Director denied institution under § 314(a) discretion in Apple’s IPRs against WeCrevention’s high-speed memory module patents, including IPR2026-00240 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,201,834. The core reason was claim-construction…
  94. Fed. Cir. · June 23, 2026MAXEON SOLAR PTE. LTD. v. HANWHA SOLUTIONS CORP.The Federal Circuit dismissed the proceeding by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side must bear its own costs.
  95. Fed. Cir. · June 23, 2026PACT XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel CorporationThe Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement. For the '301 patent, PACT forfeited its capability-based infringement theory; for the '593 patent, the district court correctly construed "physically dedicated connection"…
  96. Fed. Cir. · June 22, 2026POM GROUP INC. v. SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTSThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side will bear its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate.
  97. Fed. Cir. · June 17, 2026Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker CorporationThe Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Stryker raised substantial questions of noninfringement and that Boston Scientific therefore failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The district court did not abuse its discretion…
  98. Fed. Cir. · June 15, 2026Medmix Switzerland AG v. SquiresThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of “at least two ramps” as not requiring an inclined-plane shape. Substantial evidence supported the Board's motivation-to-combine findings, including its finding that…
  99. Fed. Cir. · June 11, 2026Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Bank of America CorporationThe Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's construction of "receiving the password" to exclude separately receiving the passcode and token components. Under the claim language and written description, the claimed "password" is…
  100. Fed. Cir. · June 5, 2026Melinta Therapeutics, LLC v. Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the '802 patent, upholding the district court's constructions of "composition" and "administering" and rejecting Nexus's written-description challenge. Because the '802 and '105 patents…
  101. Fed. Cir. · June 5, 2026Hafeman v. Google LLCThe Federal Circuit dismissed the patent owner's Sotera-stipulation challenge as barred by 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) because it sought termination for reasons tied to institution. The court otherwise affirmed the Board's obviousness…
  102. Fed. Cir. · June 4, 2026Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the asserted claims of all four patents, including the '843 patent on an alternative ground, are patent-ineligible under § 101. The claims were directed to the abstract idea of identifying…
  103. Fed. Cir. · June 4, 2026Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.The Federal Circuit held that the claim term "complementary with one another" is broad enough to cover ramped portions with mirrored angles and is not limited to ramped portions that complete one another. Because Globus did not dispute…
  104. Fed. Cir. · May 28, 2026PANTECH CORPORATION v. ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals by agreement of the parties under Rule 42(b). Each side will bear its own costs.
  105. ITC · May 28, 2026Certain Boiler Protection for Absorption Refrigeration Systems and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1453 (Violation)The ALJ granted Complainants' unopposed motion for summary determination and found a violation of section 337 by the four defaulting respondents through importation and sale of RV refrigerator boiler protection products that infringe…
  106. ITC · May 26, 2026Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1414 (Violation)The Commission found a violation of section 337 as to claims 4 and 17 of the '481 patent, but no violation as to claims 1-3 and 6, which it held invalid as obvious over Nega in view of Roberts. It issued a limited exclusion order and…
  107. Fed. Cir. · May 26, 2026ClearPlay, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C.The Federal Circuit affirmed JMOL of noninfringement on all asserted claims, holding that no reasonable jury could find that DISH's AutoHop feature directly disabled individual navigation objects as required by the '970 Patent, or that…
  108. PTAB Director Review · May 26, 2026PacifiCorp et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in IPR2025-00425 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, which concerns mercury-emissions control technology for power-plant flue gas. The denial was not based on evaluation…
  109. Fed. Cir. · May 22, 2026Pictometry International Corporation v. Roofr Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding that all claims of the '538 patent are unpatentable for obviousness, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Bailey's 'predominant slope' discloses the…
  110. ITC · May 22, 2026Certain Nanolaminate Alloy Coated Metal Parts and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1431 (Violation)The ALJ found no violation of Section 337, concluding that Modumetal failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondents' ToughShield® Plus coated products infringe Asserted Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the '419 patent or…
  111. Fed. Cir. · May 22, 2026Pictometry International Corporation v. Roofr Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's finding that all claims of the '800 patent are unpatentable for obviousness, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that a skilled artisan would have known to…
  112. ITC · May 21, 2026Certain Boiler Protection for Absorption Refrigeration Systems and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1453 (Violation)Insufficient information to determine the ALJ's holding, as the decision text provided contains zero characters (empty input beyond the case caption). No claim construction, infringement, or violation findings can be extracted.
  113. Fed. Cir. · May 21, 2026Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd.The Federal Circuit affirmed non-infringement of both patents because Otsuka failed to prove by a preponderance that Lupin's DMF process reaches practical completion of the reduction reaction before more than one molar equivalent of…
  114. Fed. Cir. · May 21, 2026SameSurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of 'web browsing interaction data' as 'data related to web browsing interactions'—broad enough to encompass partially filled webpages—and therefore affirmed the Board's finding that…
  115. PTAB Director Review · May 20, 2026Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for IPR2025-00423, a second-ranked parallel petition challenging claims 1–4 and 6–29 of the ’430 patent in chemical/process technology (TC 1700). The denial was not based on prior-art…
  116. PTAB Director Review · May 18, 2026Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v. MES, Inc.The Board denied institution of IPR2025-00278 against U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114 B2 (a chemical/environmental technology patent) not on the merits of the prior art grounds, but as a matter of docket management: because the Board…
  117. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, IPR2026-00134, and IPR2026-00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782, RE47,835, and RE49,115, directed to railroad technology) on discretionary grounds under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) because…
  118. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, -00134, and -00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782 B2, RE47,835 E, and RE49,115 E, directed to railroad technology) because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies failed to present its…
  119. PTAB Director Review · May 15, 2026Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v. Railware, Inc. et al.The Director denied institution in IPR2026-00133, -00134, and -00135 (covering Patents 9,517,782, RE47,835, and RE49,115, directed to railroad technology) on discretionary grounds because Petitioner Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies…
  120. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00171 (and companion cases -00172 and -00173) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained inconsistent claim construction positions between its IPR petitions and the parallel…
  121. Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.The Federal Circuit held that "a pH of 13 or higher" in the epoprostenol bulk-solution claims means a pH measured at standard temperature (25±2°C), so Mylan's ANDA product does not literally infringe. It also held the doctrine of…
  122. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00172 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00173) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained inconsistent claim construction positions between its IPR petitions and…
  123. PTAB Director Review · May 13, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director denied institution of IPR2026-00173 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00172) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained claim construction positions in parallel district court litigation that…
  124. Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board's construction of "the provisioned codeset record comprising protocol and formatting information." The construction does not require all protocol and formatting information to be stored in the…
  125. PTAB · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCWhen a petitioner obtains institution on plain-and-ordinary-meaning unpatentability theories but then, in parallel district court litigation, advances broader indefiniteness positions affecting the challenged claims without having…
  126. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director granted Director Review, vacated the notices granting institution, and denied institution in three related IPRs (IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, IPR2025-01524) involving automotive connectivity patents owned by AutoConnect…
  127. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorporationThe Director granted Patent Owner Haemonetics's request for Director Review, vacated the Board's institution notices, and denied institution of IPR2025-01374 (U.S. Patent 11,738,124) and IPR2025-01391 (U.S. Patent 10,758,652), both…
  128. PTAB · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorpWhen a petitioner states in an IPR petition that challenged claims need no construction or should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, but advances a materially different district-court claim-construction/indefiniteness…
  129. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director granted Patent Owner AutoConnect Holdings LLC's request for Director Review, vacated the previously granted institution notices, and denied institution in all three IPRs (IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, IPR2025-01524)…
  130. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Terumo BCT, Inc. v. Haemonetics CorporationThe Director granted Patent Owner Haemonetics's request for Director Review, vacated the Board's institution notices, and denied institution of IPR2025-01374 (U.S. Patent 11,738,124) and IPR2025-01391 (U.S. Patent 10,758,652), both…
  131. PTAB Director Review · May 12, 2026Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLCThe Director reversed the Board's institution decisions in IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, and IPR2025-01524 (Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, covering automotive connectivity patents), vacating the notices granting institution…
  132. Fed. Cir. · May 11, 2026Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.The court affirmed the Board's obviousness determinations for all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent. On the cross-appeal, it reversed the Board's finding that claims 17–20 of the '131 patent were not…
  133. Fed. Cir. · May 11, 2026Bissell, Inc. v. ITCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's final determination in full. Substantial evidence supported the findings of no literal or equivalents infringement by Tineco's redesigned products, the findings that Bissell's domestic industry…
  134. Fed. Cir. · May 5, 2026TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLCRepresentative claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853 is directed to the abstract idea of 'screening notifications' and recites only generic, well-known components arranged in a conventional manner, failing both steps of the Alice…
  135. Fed. Cir. · May 4, 2026Calderon Lopez v. State of CaliforniaThe Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as clearly untimely and frivolous, noting it is identical to a prior appeal the court already dismissed as untimely. Each party bears its own costs.
  136. Fed. Cir. · May 4, 2026Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp.The term 'about' as used in the pH range limitation ('about 7.6 to about 10') of the '321 patent is indefinite under § 112(b) because the claims, specification, and prosecution history collectively fail to inform a skilled artisan of the…
  137. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 30, 2026Wildseed Mobile, LLC v. Google LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's construction of 'taken … from a message' to include information generated or derived from message text—not merely verbatim extraction—and affirmed the Board's finding that all challenged claims are…
  138. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe court affirmed the Board's constructions of "short range communication path" (any path shorter than the claimed "longer range" path, including WLAN) and "unable to" (not limited to permanent physical incapacity), and so affirmed the…
  139. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's noninfringement judgment on all three patents. The '193 claims require two-stage filtering, with source/destination filtering only at stage one; "responsive to" in the '806 claims requires…
  140. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 29, 2026Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm IncorporatedThe Federal Circuit held that "programming change" in claim 7 of the '033 patent requires a change in function, so the Board's broader construction was wrong. Because substantial evidence did not support the Board's alternative finding…
  141. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 28, 2026Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc.The Federal Circuit held the "optimization" claims (claims 17, 21, 24, 28 of the '761 patent and claim 5 of the '700 patent) ineligible under § 101 as result-oriented claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for…
  142. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 24, 2026TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas on all three issues. Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that claim 14 of the '008 patent was not infringed, the "flag signal" construction for the '835 patent was…
  143. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's obviousness findings as to claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's claim construction of 'packet flow entry' and its finding that Sourcefire (alone or…
  144. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's finding that claims 1–5 and 8 of the '341 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Torgerson and Bruce, holding that the Board's findings on the polysilicon conductor limitation, motivation to…
  145. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.The Federal Circuit affirmed that asserted claims of both the '518 patent (directed to mapping and rendering AR objects based on device location using tessellated tile maps) and the '051 patent (directed to selecting and altering AR…
  146. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITCThe Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's finding of no Section 337 violation as to the '370 Patent, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission's determination that Centripetal's domestic industry product failed to satisfy…
  147. Fed. Cir. · Apr. 23, 2026Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLCThe Federal Circuit affirmed indefiniteness of the '988 and '464 patent claims on the term 'non-exhaustive search' and affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of the '237 patent as to the LSH version of Content ID, but reversed…
  148. PTAB · Feb. 5, 2026Ex parte ChowdhuryInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claim recites a Markush group as part of a method or combination and the specification describes the members as useful for the function of the invention…
  149. PTAB · Jan. 16, 2026TikTok, Inc. v. Shopsee, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner advances different claim construction positions before the Board and in district court (here, no express constructions in the petition but…
  150. PTAB guidance · Dec. 12, 2025Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (December 2025, web)The consolidated Trial Practice Guide folds the August 2012 Practice Guide and the August 2018 and July 2019 updates into one statement of standard Board practice in AIA trials (IPR, PGR and derivation). It states that the Board will…
  151. PTAB · Nov. 5, 2025Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner argues in district court that a claim limitation is indefinite but, in its IPR petition, adopts the plain and ordinary meaning, the petitioner's…
  152. PTAB · Nov. 3, 2025Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.When a petitioner proposes claim constructions in an IPR petition that differ from the positions it took in parallel district court litigation, the petitioner should, at a minimum, sufficiently explain why the different positions are…
  153. PTAB guidance · Oct. 17, 2025Director Institution of AIA Trial ProceedingsEffective October 20, 2025, the Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines whether to institute trial in all IPR and PGR proceedings, considering discretionary considerations, the merits, and non-discretionary…
  154. PTAB · Sept. 19, 2025Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc. v. Nivagen Pharm., Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner advances a narrower claim construction in parallel district court litigation than the broader (plain and ordinary meaning) construction it urges in…
  155. PTAB · June 25, 2025CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Where a petitioner files two petitions against the same claims of the same patent chiefly to present two different constructions of a claim term (a broader and a…
  156. PTAB · Dec. 13, 2024Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a petitioner has argued in parallel district court litigation that claim terms are means-plus-function terms under § 112(f) (and called that issue dispositive),…
  157. PTAB guidance · Oct. 5, 2023SOP 3 (rev. 2, formerly SOP 9): Procedure for Decisions Remanded from the Federal Circuit for Further ProceedingsSOP 3 sets the Board's procedure for handling cases remanded from the Federal Circuit. It sets a goal of deciding remanded cases within six months of receiving the mandate, requires parties in remanded trials to contact the Board within…
  158. PTAB · Feb. 24, 2023Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings Pty LtdWhen a multiple dependent claim alternatively references more than one claim and the Board finds one referenced claim unpatentable but another not unpatentable, the Board cannot hold every version of the multiple dependent claim…
  159. PTAB guidance · June 9, 2022Updated applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) memorandumSuperseded on July 31, 2025 by Enforcement and Non-waiver of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and Permissible Uses of General Knowledge in Inter Partes Reviews (July 31, 2025). The memorandum sets out the USPTO's reading of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) on…
  160. PTAB guidance · Jan. 6, 2021Indefiniteness in AIA post-grant proceedings memorandumThe memorandum directs the Board to analyze indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in AIA post-grant proceedings using the Supreme Court's Nautilus approach, the approach used by district courts, rather than the Packard approach. It…
  161. PTAB · Jan. 24, 2020Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.When a patent owner offers objective indicia of nonobviousness in an IPR, the Board first asks whether a presumption of nexus applies, which requires a showing that the evidence is tied to a specific product that embodies the claimed…
  162. PTAB guidance · Nov. 20, 2019Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019)Superseded by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (December 2025, web). The November 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide folds the August 2012 Practice Guide and the August 2018 and July 2019 updates into one document describing AIA…
  163. PTAB · Aug. 23, 2019GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc.When a party is served, in a manner prescribed by law, with a pleading (complaint or counterclaim) asserting a claim alleging infringement of the patent, the one-year period in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) begins on the date of service, and the…
  164. PTAB guidance · July 16, 2019Trial Practice Guide (July 2019 update)Superseded on November 20, 2019 by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019). The July 2019 Trial Practice Guide update revises selected sections of the August 2012 Practice Guide on a rolling basis. It sets practices on ex parte…
  165. PTAB · Apr. 1, 2019Ex parte HannunInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Applying the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, when a claim recites a specific implementation of speech transcription (normalizing, jitter set,…
  166. PTAB · Feb. 25, 2019Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.When a patent owner files a motion to amend in an inter partes review, a request to substitute claims is ordinarily treated as contingent, the burden of persuasion on unpatentability of substitute claims ordinarily lies with the…
  167. PTAB · Feb. 20, 2019Ex Parte SpanglerInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an examiner finds that particular relative sizes and locations of claimed features solve no stated problem and would perform equally well in the combined prior…
  168. PTAB · Jan. 31, 2019Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.When a petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date the petition was filed, the Board cannot institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1), which…
  169. PTAB · Nov. 7, 2018Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. Even when a petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on one or more claims, institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) remains discretionary, and the Board…
  170. PTAB · Aug. 25, 2017Ex parte McAwardWhen examining a pending application, the Office makes a prima facie case of indefiniteness under § 112(b) (pre-AIA § 112, second paragraph) by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation and explaining how the metes and bounds of the…
  171. PTAB · Apr. 28, 2016Ex parte SchulhauserWhen a method claim recites steps that need to be performed only if a condition precedent is met, the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a method in which the condition is not met, so the Board need not require prior art evidence…
  172. PTAB · May 8, 2013Ex parte MewherterWhen a claim recites a "machine-readable storage medium" (or computer-readable storage medium), the specification is silent as to its meaning, and extrinsic evidence shows that those of ordinary skill at the effective filing date…
  173. PTAB guidance · Aug. 14, 2012Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (August 2012)Superseded on November 20, 2019 by Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains the general framework of the final trial rules in 37 CFR Part 42 for inter partes review, post-grant…
  174. PTAB · Dec. 9, 2011Ex parte Vegas Amusements, Inc.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. In ex parte reexamination, where claims use the open-ended transition "comprising" and recite "a" processor device, the Board gives "a" its usual meaning of "one or…
  175. PTAB · May 16, 2011Ex parte Bayer Cropscience, LPInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a method claim's body recites the same compound and the same steps as a prior art reference, and the preamble states only a purpose (here, "attracting insects")…
  176. PTAB · June 2, 2010Ex Parte QuistWhen an appellant argues on appeal that the examiner erred in finding obviousness based in part on proffered secondary-considerations evidence, the Board must review the obviousness conclusion anew on the totality of the record, weighing…
  177. PTAB · Oct. 1, 2009Ex parte RodriguezWhen a claim to a computer-implemented function is written in means-plus-function form, or uses a nonce term such as "generator," "builder" or "environment" that is not recognized as the name of structure, and the specification discloses…
  178. PTAB · Aug. 6, 2009Ex parte GivensInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an applicant's specification does not expressly define a claim term but describes the term as a specific type of processing known in the art and sets out the…
  179. PTAB · July 22, 2009Ex parte MoonInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an examiner construes a claim limitation in a way that is inconsistent with the specification (here, drawings showing a heat dissipater not coupled to an entire…
  180. PTAB · June 19, 2009Ex parte FrenkInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claim term of approximation such as "substantially equal" is construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board will not accept an examiner's…
  181. PTAB · May 6, 2009Ex parte JanakiramanInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the Board affirms an independent claim as obvious solely because an unchallenged dependent claim was affirmed as obvious (and the examiner never rejected the…
  182. PTAB · Feb. 3, 2009Ex parte CatlinWhen a claim limitation uses "means" and recites no structure to perform the function in its entirety, so that 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph is invoked, and the function is computer-implemented, the Board must look to the specification…
  183. PTAB · Feb. 2, 2009Ex parte Sami Chems. & Extracts, Ltd .Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the Board affirms an examiner's rejection using a claim construction not expressed in the examiner's exact words, the affirmance is not a new ground of rejection…
  184. PTAB · Nov. 19, 2008Ex parte MiyazakiWhen a claim pending before the USPTO is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the Board may hold it indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and need not find it "insolubly ambiguous" or "not amenable to…
  185. PTAB · Nov. 13, 2008Ex parte ChuangInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a prior art reference discloses an amino acid sequence 100% identical to a claimed isolated protein, the Board may find anticipation under § 102(b) even though…
  186. PTAB · July 31, 2008Ex parte BeinekeInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an applicant seeks a plant patent under 35 U.S.C. § 161 for a plant discovered in a cultivated-looking setting such as a yard, the Board will read the exclusion…
  187. PTAB · July 23, 2008Ex parte WhalenWhen the prior art teaches away from the claimed solution, as where every reference favors low viscosity and the claims require a much higher viscosity, an examiner cannot establish obviousness merely by asserting that a known composition…
  188. PTAB · May 29, 2008Ex parte KimInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claim recites a relative limitation (here, that a finger-to-via "width ratio ... is reduced") and neither the claim nor the specification gives the artisan…
  189. PTAB · May 13, 2008Ex parte HansenInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claimed product differs from the prior art only in the content of printed matter, the Board applies the Gulack test and gives the printed matter no patentable…
  190. PTAB · Apr. 29, 2008Ex parte POD-NERS, L.L.C .Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claim to a plant variety or its seed relies on a seed deposit and the record (the patent's own statements, declarations and counsel's admissions) shows the…
  191. PTAB · Mar. 31, 2008Ex parte BobrowskiInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When claim scope is so unclear, even in light of the specification, that applying prior art would require "speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and…
  192. PTAB · Jan. 28, 2008Ex parte NehlsWhen a claim to a computer-based system differs from the prior art system only in the content of the sequence data stored in its data storage means, and that data does not functionally change how the computer performs the search (the…
  193. PTAB · Nov. 13, 2007Ex parte LazzaraInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a pending claim uses a term of degree such as "substantially uniform" and neither the claims, the specification, nor record evidence supplies a standard for…
  194. PTAB · July 27, 2007Ex parte McBreartyInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When the prior art identifies a design need or problem (here, Web latency) and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, the Board may conclude that…
  195. PTAB · July 25, 2007Ex parte RighiInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an obviousness rejection rests on combining familiar elements that are unaltered and perform the same function, the Board may affirm on less than all of the…
  196. PTAB · July 3, 2007Ex parte CatanWhen a claimed structure is a known prior art structure altered by the mere substitution of one known element for another known element performing the same function (here, bioauthentication in place of a PIN or password), the Board may…
  197. PTAB · May 31, 2007Ex parte KubinWhen the prior art supplies a known problem (isolating a particular cDNA), a limited number of conventional methodologies for solving it, and a reasonable expectation that at least one will succeed, the Board may treat the claimed product…
  198. PTAB · Mar. 27, 2007Ex parte BatteuxInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a prior art reference discloses administering the claimed compound to a patient within a broadly construed method claim, the Board may find inherent anticipation…
  199. PTAB · Mar. 14, 2007Ex parte AdamsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a reissue is filed more than two years after grant and the original patent claim is indefinite because it contains contradictory limitations (an element both…
  200. PTAB · Feb. 28, 2007Karim v. JobsonInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an interference has been resolved against a party on priority and on unpatentability grounds that answer the Examiner's "yes" or "no" question (do the patent…
  201. PTAB · May 17, 2006Ex parte TullisInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an application claim is a genus and a claim of the applicant's earlier patent is a species within it, the later genus claim is anticipated by, and not patentably…
  202. PTAB · Feb. 22, 2006Ex parte KrausInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. In ex parte examination of a reissue application, when claims are broader than the patent claims in a limitation that was added by amendment (including by canceling a…
  203. PTAB · Sept. 16, 2003Stiller v. HeidInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(b) for judgment of no interference-in-fact, the movant (both parties, if the motion is joint, and even if unopposed) bears the…
  204. PTAB · May 12, 2003Genise v. DesautelsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a moving party in an interference relies on a prior art reference or on a general incorporation by reference, the Board will not search the record or credit…
  205. PTAB · Mar. 19, 2003Sanada v. ReynoldsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a claim element uses purely functional language to define a structural component without the word "means," and the term is neither a recognized name for…
  206. PTAB · Mar. 18, 2003Strelchenko v. University of MassachusettsInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When all of an applicant's involved claims were made more than a year after the opposing patent issued, 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) bars them unless a claim the applicant…
  207. PTAB · June 11, 2002University of Washington v. Eli Lilly & Co.Informative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When deciding a motion for no interference-in-fact, the Board compares the parties' corresponding claims and, applying 37 CFR § 1.601(n), treats each party's claimed…
  208. PTAB · Jan. 4, 2002Gregory v. TsuiInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party attacks an opponent's accorded benefit in an interference, a best-mode defect in the benefit application does not defeat its status as a constructive…
  209. PTAB · Jan. 2, 2002Bronshtein v. RoserInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(b) for judgment of no interference-in-fact, it bears the burden under 37 CFR § 1.637(a), by a preponderance of the evidence,…
  210. PTAB · 2002Preputnick v. ProvencherInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party relies on an expert declaration for a written description challenge, and the expert states a conclusion without disclosing the underlying facts or data…
  211. PTAB · Oct. 31, 2001Dionne v. LiottaInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When parties define the level of ordinary skill by abstract references to academic degrees and years of laboratory experience, the Board will give those references…
  212. PTAB · Oct. 19, 2001Noelle v. LedermanInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. The question of no interference-in-fact is a one-way distinctiveness test, so a movant prevails by showing either that its claims are not anticipated or rendered…
  213. PTAB · Oct. 16, 2001Tseng v. Doroodian-ShojaInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When a party moves for no interference-in-fact, it bears the burden of showing patentable distinctness in either direction: either that none of its claims…
  214. PTAB · May 25, 2001Sauer, Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg.When a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) to change the count to one broader than the sum of what each party has claimed, the Board will not adopt the count without a compelling reason, and a mere showing that the movant's best or…
  215. PTAB · May 11, 2001Furman v. ChengInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. In an interference, benefit for the purpose of priority is accorded with respect to the count, not the claims corresponding to it, so a party need only show that its…
  216. PTAB · 2001Yurek v. YamadaInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. An interference-in-fact exists when at least one claim of a party and one claim of an opponent are directed to the same patentable invention, meaning each is…
  217. PTAB · Mar. 16, 2000Lee v. McIntyreWhen a party moves under 37 CFR § 1.633(c)(1) to substitute a narrower count, the Board will not apply a per se rule that the count must be as broad as the broadest patentable claim designated as corresponding to it. Under Rule 606 the…
  218. PTAB · Nov. 10, 1999Housey v. BermanWhen deciding whether an applicant had, before the one-year critical date, a claim to "the same or substantially the same subject matter" as a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b), the Board must not apply the obviousness standard of 35…
  219. PTAB · Feb. 18, 1998Bamberger v. CheruvuInformative decision only: persuasive authority, not binding precedent. When an applicant in an interference asserts that a patent claim is unpatentable, the applicant bears the burden of proving its case by a preponderance of the…

Other topics