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).

On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 unpatentable.  Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., (Fed. Cir. January 14, 2025).  In its decision, the CAFC considered the question of when a published patent application is deemed prior art in an inter partes review (“IPR”) and concluded, as did the PTAB, that they are prior art as of their filing date.

On January 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277 patent”) by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp”).

In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd., issued July 31, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the AIA”) public disclosure exception to prior art, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). 

On May 21, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit” or “court”) issued an en banc opinion, affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial, and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision that the prior art, including U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340 (“Lian”) did not render unpatentable Appellee GM Global Technology Operations LLC’s (“GM”) U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625 (the “D’625 patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, __F.4th__, 2024 WL 2280728 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024). The en banc court affirmed the Board’s § 102 decision of no anticipation but vacated and remanded its § 103 decision of nonobviousness because the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test. Id. 

On March 4, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which found all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,152,788; 8,784,398; 8,771,249; and 8,708,990 to be unpatentable as obvious.

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed and vacated several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to the patentability of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,812 and 10,625,436. The patents relate to high-speed slicers used to slice and package food products.

On January 19, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the final determination of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which found that: (i) intervenor Universal Electronics, Inc. (“Universal”) had ownership rights to assert the ’196 patent in the investigation, (ii) Universal satisfied the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337) and (iii) appellant Roku failed to establish the ’196 patent was obvious over prior art.

On October 16, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion that (i) reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California’s pre-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of nonobviousness, (ii) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny defendant’s pre-verdict and post-trial motions for JMOL regarding noninfringement, (iii) reversed the district court’s denial of defendant’s pre and post-trial motions to exclude the testimony of patent owner’s damages expert, (iv) vacated the lost profits award, and (v) remanded the case for further consistent proceedings.  Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., No. 2022-1873, --F.4th.--, 2023 WL 6798376 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023).

On October 19, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that reversed-in-part, vacated, and remanded the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that the prior art, including Claire Simonnet & Alex Groisman, High-Throughput and High-Resolution Flow Cytometry in Molded Microfluidic Devices, 78 Analytical Chemistry 5653 (2006) (“Simonnet”), did not render unpatentable Appellee Cytonome/ST, LLC’s (“Cytonome”) U.S. Patent No. 10,583,439 (the “’439 patent”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.  ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, No. 2022-1761, 2023 WL 6885009 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023).

On September 11, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion, vacating the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that the prior art, including U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 (“Parulski”), did not render unpatentable Appellee Corephotonics, Ltd.’s (“Corephotonics”) U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 (the “’479 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., No. 2022-1350, 2023 WL 5838695 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2023).

On July 24, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Case No. 1:20-cv-00755-RGA-JLH, Judge Richard G. Andrews, finding claims of one asserted patent valid and infringed and claims of another asserted patent anticipated but otherwise infringed.  United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023).  In its precedential decision, the CAFC held, inter alia, that the district court did not err in declining to import safety and efficacy limitations into method of treatment claims in the first patent, and also did not err in finding that a decision of unpatentability by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, currently on appeal, did not bar liability for induced infringement.

On May 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision that U.S. Patent 7,736,355 to Itou, et al. (“Itou”) could not be used as prior art to invalidate five Teleflex Innovations S.à.R.L. (“Teleflex”) patents, which were on appeal.  Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.à.R.L., No. 2021-2356, 2023 WL 3606143 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2023).

On April 12, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-KAJ, Judge Kent A. Jordan, invalidating asserted claims of plaintiff’s ’589 patent as obvious. UCB Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023). In its order affirming invalidity, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s holding of invalidity for obviousness but found legal error in the district court’s anticipation holding because it misapplied the CAFC’s decision in Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

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 August 17, 2022, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, finding that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) barred Ingenio, Inc.’s invalidity argument, even though the challenged claim had not been addressed by the PTAB in the final written decision in Ingenio’s IPR.  Click-to-Call Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2022-1016 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2022).

On May 6, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Konda v. Flex Logic Techs., Inc., No. 2022-1162, __ F. App’x __ (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022).  The PTAB agreed that a prior art reference rendered unpatentable the challenged claims.

On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 2:13-cv-04606-MSG, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg, granting plaintiff-appellee’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity of an asserted design patent under the on-sale bar.  Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC held that a letter offering a quotation for product covered by the patent does constitute an offer for sale under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

On January 21, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the report and recommendation of the special master recommending the court grant defendant’s motion to exclude options set forth in an expert report prepared on behalf of patentee-plaintiff, because those opinions were contradicted by patentee-plaintiff’s statements to the patent office made during reexamination of the at-issue patent.
 

On November 7, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision finding invalidity on obviousness grounds.  Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp. et al., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion in admitting late-submitted evidence regarding the public availability of a foreign publication and in finding that the foreign publication was available as prior art.

On January 22, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the “on sale” bar.  Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S., case no. 17-1229.  The Supreme Court held that a commercial sale to a third party may still place the invention “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of the AIA, even if the third party was required to keep confidential the details of the invention.

On November 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the patent claims that had been challenged by inter partes review (IPR) to be not unpatentable.   Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. November 6, 2018).  The CAFC ruled that the patent challenger had not proved that an article available on the Internet before the critical date was a “printed publication,” and that the article therefore was not available as prior art.