In response to a request for a Director Review of a PTAB decision finding claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,168 unpatentable, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), on May 1, 2026, referred this review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”).  The DRP is to determine whether petitioners had presented “meaningfully different evidence and arguments” to the PTAB compared to what had been presented to the jury in a district court action that reached a finding that patent had not been proven invalid.  Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., IPR2021-01226, Paper 65 (May 1, 2026). In referring this review, the Director of the USPTO stated that the PTAB panel “effectively disregard[ed]” the September 16, 2025 Memorandum re prior findings of fact and conclusions of law. IPR 2021-01226, Paper 65 at 4.  The Memorandum requires the Board to explain why a different outcome is warranted when it reaches a finding or conclusion different from a prior adjudication, with a more detailed explanation required when the same or substantially the same evidence or arguments were presented. 

On June 4, 2026, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, reversed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin Pharma, Inc. failed to plausibly allege that Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. actively induced patent infringement through its generic version of Vascepa under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889 (U.S. June 4, 2026).  Plaintiff alleged that the totality of defendant’s statements across its “skinny label,” website, patient leaflet, and press releases induced physicians to prescribe defendant’s generic drug for plaintiff’s patented cardiovascular use.   

On May 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judges Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll) affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia finding that defendant does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,318,802 and 8,598,227 (collectively, the “’802” and “’227” patents), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.  Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2024-1641 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2026).  The decision addresses how pH measurements recited in pharmaceutical patent claims should be interpreted, and the application of prosecution history estoppel and the disclosure-dedication rule to bar equivalents-based infringement theories. 

On May 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judges Lourie, Prost, and District Judge Burroughs) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas holding that asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321 (“the ‘321 patent”) were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).  Enviro Tech Chem. Servs., Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp., No. 2024-2160 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2026).  The decision addresses the circumstances under which a term of approximation renders a patent claim indefinite, particularly when the specification provides conflicting guidance and the prosecution history reflects inconsistent treatment of the term. 

On March 11, 2026, United States Patent and Trademark Office Director John A. Squires issued a memorandum introducing additional discretionary factors for the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) and post-grant review (“PGR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The memorandum signals a notable shift in how the USPTO intends to evaluate petitions challenging patent validity, placing new emphasis on domestic manufacturing activity and small business status.

On March 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decision (“FWD”) on remand in an inter partes review (“IPR”), relating to certificates of correction of inventorship issued after the FWDs had been rendered. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2020-1173, ---F.4th--- (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026).

On April 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,458,689 under the pre-America-Invents-Act on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq, No. 2024-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026).

On March 3, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) finding of no anticipation but reversing and remanding on the issue of obviousness. 

Alamo Title Company sued WFG National Title Company in a Bexar County district court, alleging that WFG orchestrated a “mass raid” of its employees and customers. Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6 (4th Div. Feb. 3, 2026).

On February 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed a Statement of Interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:23-cv-00587 (JRG).

On February 19, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment of non infringement in favor of defendants in Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 17-CV-135, 2024 WL 1255513 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2024). The Federal Circuit held that patentee failed to present sufficient evidence that the accused components were structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure of a means plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). 

On February 20, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing and remanding a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding the asserted claims of appellant’s patent invalid as directed to a patent-ineligible natural phenomenon under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Regenxbio Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2026).

On February 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, finding six patents owned by plaintiff invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp., No. 2024-1545 (C.A.F.C. Feb. 6, 2026).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, owned by Gesture Technology Partners, LLC. The decision interpreted provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), affirmed the PTAB’s decision to invalidate two claims in Gesture’s patent on motion-sensing technology, and confirmed the Board’s authority to rule on expired patents.

In Akamai Techs., Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., No. 24-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s summary judgment determinations of indefiniteness and non-infringement.  Akamai Technologies, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,559,426 and 9,426,195, against AMHC, Inc., the owner of the patents, and its subsidiary, MediaPointe, Inc. (referred to collectively as “MediaPointe”).  MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement, and Akamai sought a declaratory judgment of invalidity.

On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a decision denying a petition for writ of mandamus relief from the discretionary deinstitution of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”). In re Motorola Sols., Inc., No. 2025-0134, F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2025). Motorola challenged the discretionary actions of the Acting Director of the PTO as violating the Administrative Procedures Act and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but the CAFC rejected both arguments and denied Motorola’s petition.

In Duke University v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2024-1078, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed a judgment of the United States District Court of Colorado, and held the sole, infringed claim invalid for lack of written description because the specification broadly discloses billions of prostaglandin compounds without representative species or adequate “blaze marks” to the claimed subgenus.

On October 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two inter partes review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating claims in two of Merck Serono S.A.’s patents covering oral cladribine dosing regimens for treating multiple sclerosis (“MS”).  The opinion addresses both the substantive obviousness analysis and an important doctrinal question under pre-AIA §§ 102(a) and 102(e): when a disclosure with overlapping inventors qualifies as prior art “by another.”

On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and remanded the claim construction decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas that invalidated for indefiniteness several claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122 (“the ’122 Patent”). Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, No. 2024-1466, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025). 

In an October 27, 2025 precedential opinion, Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 2024-1145, the Federal Circuit affirmed a stipulated judgment of non-infringement in favor of Edwards Lifesciences (“Edwards”) based on the district court’s construction of the term “outer frame” in Aortic Innovations’ (“Aortic”) transcatheter aortic valve replacement device patents.

On October 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judges Dyk, Prost, and Stoll) (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the District of Delaware’s judgment in a patent infringement action holding that Rex Medical, L.P. (“Rex”) failed to present sufficient, reliable evidence to support any damages.  The Federal Circuit treated the district court’s reduction of a $10 million jury award to $1 nominal damages as a grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no damages.  The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s claim construction and the jury’s findings of infringement and written description adequacy.

On September 23, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part, decisions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York finding that appellants Kartri Sales Co., Inc. (“Kartri”) and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. (“Marquis”) infringed several patent, trademark, and trade dress rights owned by appellees (collectively, “Focus”), that the infringement was willful, and that the case was exceptional.  

On September 25, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision refusing registration of ASPIRE BANK word and design marks for banking and financing services by Apex Bank.  Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., No. 2023-2143 (C.A.F.C. Sept. 25, 2025). 

On September 9, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion vacating-in-part, affirming-in-part, and remanding a district court decision that denied motions for sanctions, fees, costs, and discovery request.  Future Link Sys., LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 2023-1056, __F.4th__ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2025).  

Plaintiff Magēmā Technology LLC (“Magēmā”) sued Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP (together, “Phillips”) asserting two patents related to making residual heavy marine fuel oil (“HMFO”) with low sulfur content.  HMFO is used to power large, ocean-going cargo ships and must meet an internationally recognized standard known as International Organization for Standardization 8217:2017 (“ISO 8217”). 

On August 26, 2025, in its first post-America Invents Act (“AIA”) review of a derivation proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that Marc Selner (the respondent and appellee), who filed his patent application before Global Health Solutions LLC (“GHS,” the petitioner and appellant), was the proper inventor of the patent.  Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, No. 2023-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025).

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah that found certain claims of a selectorized dumbbell patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).

On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment that claims of Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc.’s (“Wilco”) amphibious vehicle patent are invalid as anticipated.  Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-2320 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2025).

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in the ongoing dispute in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., addressing the collateral estoppel effect of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions on subsequent district court patent invalidity litigation.  The question presented was whether a PTAB finding of unpatentability in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding should preclude relitigation of similar or patentably indistinct claims in district court, even though the standards of proof differ between the two forums.

In Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the judgment in a patent infringement case involving three patents owned by Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.  The patents in question—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125 (’125 patent), 10,352,540 (’540 patent), and 9,939,140 (’140 patent)—relate to the physical configuration of LED tube lamps.

On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “PTAB”) decision not to apply interference estoppel and, therefore, to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), was unreviewable and affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision finding that the challenged claims were invalid for obviousness.

The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and ultimately invalidated the patent at issue.  The patent, Shockwave’s U.S. Patent No. 8,956,371, relates to an angioplasty catheter for treating atherosclerosis with intravascular lithotripsy (IVL). 

On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of a Janssen patent, finding that Teva did not meet its burden to prove obviousness.  In so doing, the Federal Circuit provided direction regarding how the overlapping range presumption should be applied and the need for a fact-specific analysis in obviousness challenges.

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the phrase “consisting essentially of.”

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to infringement when the case involved five asserted patents. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1904, 2025 WL 1680253 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025).  

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found several claims of Ancora Technologies, Inc.’s (“Ancora”) U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (the “’941 patent”) unpatentable as obvious.  Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 2023-1647, 2025 WL 1679967 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2025).

On June 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes) affirmed the District of Delaware’s claim construction in a patent infringement dispute involving lipid components used in Moderna’s (Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., and Moderna US, Inc.) mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.

On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies.  The patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,337,001 and 10,900,034, claim synthetic CRISPR guide RNAs with specific chemical modifications intended to improve stability and functionality.

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 not unpatentable.  Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025).  In its decision, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB had implicitly and incorrectly construed claim language when considering the disclosures in the prior art.

On May 12, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in an interference proceeding concluding that  the Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad Institute”) has priority over the Regents of the University of California (“Regents”) with respect to the CRISPR-Cas9 system-related patent claims in dispute. Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., No. 22-1653 (C.A.F.C. May 12, 2025). 

On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced healthcare providers to infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,143,693 (“the ’693 patent”), and that Mylan did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the ’693 patent is invalid. Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Lab’ys Ltd., No. 2023-2042, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025).

On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on prior art, including the ChloraPrep Public Assessment Report (“PAR”) and other references. Sage Prods., LLC v. Stewart, No. 23-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025).

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming a district court’s judgement of infringement while vacating and remanding the district court’s damages award, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages ascribed to convoyed sales. Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., No. 2023-1841, slip op. at *26 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application (“Lettich”) qualified as prior art to a pending application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678 (the “’168 Application”), because the Board’s analysis as to Lettich’s prior art status was incomplete.  In re Riggs, No. 22-1945, __ F.4th ___ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).