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 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 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 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 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 September 16, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision from the District Court of Minnesota which held the asserted claims of medical patents to be indefinite.

On November 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding unpatentable the challenged claims of a patent directed to methods for making semiconductor devices. Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Advanced Semiconductor Eng’g, Inc., __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2023).

On October 6, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the Western District of Texas’s holding of indefiniteness as to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,751,585 (the “’585 Patent”).  WSOU Investments LLC (“WSOU”) accused Google LLC (“Google”) of infringing independent claim 9, and claims 10-16 dependent therefrom, of the ’585 Patent.  The ’585 Patent is directed to a management method for electronic messages in a user’s inbox in a communication system.  The district court construed the limitation, “a collaborative application management processor configured to manage collaborative application,” to be indefinite as a means-plus-function limitation without sufficient corresponding structure.

Canopy Growth Corp. (“Canopy”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against GW Pharma Ltd. and GW Research Ltd. (collectively, “GW”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Judge Alan Albright issued an order construing the sole disputed claim limitation: “CO2 in liquefied form under subcritical pressure and temperature conditions.” Based on the issued claim construction order, the parties stipulated to non-infringement, and the court entered final judgment in favor of GW as to infringement and dismissed GW’s remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims without prejudice. Canopy appealed the court’s claim construction. On April 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming Judge Albright’s claim construction and the entry of final judgment of non-infringement.

On April 5, 2023, in a precedential order, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 (the “’467 patent”), as well as the jury’s corresponding finding of non-infringement. Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2021-2320 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023).

On December 20, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a patent infringement and trade dress litigation between money-clip wallet competitors Mosaic Brands, Inc. (“Mosaic”) and Ridge Wallet LLC (“Ridge”).  Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, Appeal No. 22-1001 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022).

On November 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington striking portions of a plaintiff’s expert report and granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant.  Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., No. 21-1171 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).  The CAFC found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to strike portions of the report, nor did it err in its finding that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence of non-infringement.

On November 1, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a summary judgment decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, finding asserted claims from a family of related patents indefinite and thus invalid. Finjan LLC, Inc. v. ESET, LLC, No. 2021-2093 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2022). The CAFC held, inter alia, that the district court’s construction of the term “Downloadable,” appearing in all asserted claims, was improperly restricted to the narrowest of competing definitions provided in the patent family.

On August 12, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which found unpatentable the challenged claims of a patent relating to housings for ultrasonic flow meters. Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).

On July 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sanctioned plaintiff-appellant Pop Top Corp. for the filing of a frivolous appeal, granting defendant-appellee Rakuten Kobo Inc. $107,748 in attorney’s fees and doubled costs.  Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., No. 21-2174 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2022).

On June 30, 2022, Judge Noreika of the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that certain asserted claims were indefinite and modified her construction of the term that formed the basis of defendants’ indefiniteness argument.  Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Case No. 17-1612, (D. Del. June 30, 2022).

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a request for rehearing, vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s decision that the patent claim was not invalid for inadequate written description.  Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc., No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022).

On June 3, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the correction of an obvious minor clerical error in the asserted claim language and a judgment of willfulness by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”).  Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., No. 2021-1834 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2022).  The CAFC found that the CDCA properly corrected an obvious minor clerical error in the asserted claims and held that defendant’s reliance on such error was not a defense to willful infringement.

On April 1, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a district court’s claim construction and corresponding summary judgement of non-infringement decisions.  The lower court had improperly relied on extrinsic evidence to determine what had been disclaimed by the applicant during prosecution.  Genuine Enabling Tech. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 2020-2167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).

​On December 8, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board  (“Board”), finding that petitioner Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. (“Lenovo”) had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims it challenged in an inter partes review (“IPR”) were unpatentable.  Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021).

On September 10, 2021, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion on claim construction.  Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 20-662-RGA, slip. op. (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2021).  Judge Andrews held that certain claims of the asserted patent containing “translator device…” limitations were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because they failed to disclose corresponding structure for the claimed function.

On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing the district court’s conclusion that a claim was not invalid as indefinite.  Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021).  The CAFC held that the claim term, “user identification module,” was a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and invalid as indefinite for failure to disclose corresponding structure (here, an algorithm).
 

On October 8, 2020, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied plaintiff Think Product, Inc.’s motion to reconsider a finding of patent invalidity.  Think Products, Inc. v. Acco Brands Corp. and Acco Brands, USA LLC, No. 18-cv-07506 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2020).  The Court had previously granted defendants Acco Brands Corporation’s and Acco Brands, USA LLC’s motion for summary judgment invalidating two patents based on collateral estoppel arising from rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating for obviousness two similar patents.
 

On August 27, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing plaintiff Baxalta Inc.’s (“Baxalta”) infringement suit against Genetech, Inc. (“Genentech”).  Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2020).
 

On August 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.  MyMail, Ltd. V. ooVoo, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).  The CAFC held that the district court erred by declining to resolve a claim construction dispute prior to its ruling that the patents asserted by plaintiff MyMail are directed to unpatentable subject matter.

On August 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the obviousness finding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB’s claim construction on which its obviousness finding was premised was incorrect because the construction conflated corresponding structure in the patent’s specification with a structural definition for the term, instead of construing the term as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.