Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., 2026 WL 899158 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2026) The Constitution mandates that the U.S. patent system promote the progress of science and useful arts.  Naming and crediting all inventors has long been central to that mandate.  While the Patent Act allows correction of inventorship errors, patentees should not take that remedy for granted.  In Fortress, the Federal Circuit held that failure to […]

Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 25-2026 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2026) After years of litigation, the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit because the plaintiff couldn’t prove it owned the patents at the time it filed the suit.  The decision in AIT v. Salesforce emphasizes these lessons: The precise wording […]

In Implicit v. Sonos, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s refusal to let Implicit use post-decision certificates of correction to introduce a new antedating theory in inter partes review. Implicit owned two related patents that originally named two individuals as the sole inventors. After Sonos filed IPRs to challenge the patents, Implicit argued that those […]

Exafer, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-2296 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) In Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s exclusion of expert damages testimony and clarified the proper reach of its 2018 decision in Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co. which was understood to stand for the proposition that […]

REGENXBIO v. Trustees of UPenn, No. 2024-1408 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2026) Generally, someone may receive a patent for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.  However, for over 75 years, courts have made a judicial exception to this rule prohibiting patents from covering natural phenomena.  While it is well-known that patents cannot cover natural phenomena, courts often struggle to determine whether natural phenomena that have […]

Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co. Inc., 2026 WL 261890 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2026) On February 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc., holding that Armaid’s massage device did not infringe Range of Motion’s (RoM) design patent. The two […]

Xodus Medical Inc. et al. v. U.S. Surgitech, Inc., No. 1-19-cv-03164 (NDIL Jan. 30, 2026) In a recent decision that may surprise patent drafters and litigators alike, the Northern District of Illinois held that a patent claim using flexible, outcome-oriented language was not invalid for indefiniteness.  In Xodus Medical Inc. et al. v. U.S. Surgitech, Inc., […]

A federal judge dismissed a trademark suit brought by a North Carolina law firm branding itself the “Beer Law Center” against a Colorado firm calling itself “Beer Law HQ”—on jurisdictional grounds. But the case raises a deeper question: when your mark is highly descriptive, how defensible is it really? Meanwhile, Autodesk sued Google over the […]

The Blockbuster brand—once synonymous with Friday night movie rentals—is now fighting a trademark battle against a Mississippi-based animal feed company it says is exploiting the Blockbuster legacy. This is a reminder that brand equity doesn’t disappear just because a company’s original business model did. And third parties will try to capitalize on dormant goodwill. For […]

Recently, in Ex parte Carmody, the PTAB reversed an examiner’s eligibility rejection of an AI patent application, signaling that the USPTO’s updated guidance is creating a clearer path to AI patent protection. At the same time, the Federal Circuit has shown caution about rulings that could render all AI unpatentable. For companies investing heavily in […]