Analysis
Case updates, analysis, and practical patent litigation guides.
Arbor Systems Opens a Delaware Front With Six One-Patent Complaints.
Arbor Systems LLC filed six patent infringement complaints in the District of Delaware on October 14, 2026, Nos. 1:26-cv-01316 through 1:26-cv-01322 (excluding 01319), against ModalAI, Synaptics, Tempo Interactive, FitMyFoot, Firefly Systems, and Cura BioMed. Each asserts one patent, U.S. Patents 9,835,709, 9,549,691, 9,975,033, 12,304,166 (against two defendants), and 10,783,559, with claim charts in an exhibit that was not publicly available when this page was prepared.
Atlas Global Technologies Sues Walmart in East Texas on Five More Wi-Fi 6 Patents.
Atlas Global Technologies LLC sued Walmart Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 14, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00928. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 9,532,187, 9,641,234, 9,763,259, 9,825,738, and 9,912,513, which it says came from Newracom engineers, against Vizio, onn, and third-party products Walmart sells that it says implement the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, and it pleads willfulness based on 2022 letters to Vizio and 2025 letters to Walmart.
ABC IP and Rare Breed's Suit Against Rainier Arms Over Forced-Reset Selectors Moves Into the East Texas MDL.
On October 14, 2026, a conditional transfer order moved ABC IP, LLC, Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., and RBTM LLC's suit against ROKC LLC, doing business as Rainier Arms, from the Western District of Oklahoma to the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings, where it is No. 4:26-cv-01498. The July 23, 2026 complaint asserts five forced-reset trigger patents, including U.S. Patent 12,031,784, against the War Hammer Super Safety and the Atrius Development Group Forced Reset Selector, and adds FRT trademark counts.
Sectra Sues Verizon in East Texas Over a Network Handover Patent.
Sectra Communications AB sued three Verizon entities in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 15, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00930. The complaint asserts claims 1 through 21 of U.S. Patent 7,797,437, a method patent on keeping a session alive when a mobile unit switches networks, against Verizon's Wi-Fi Calling infrastructure and its zero trust and mobile VPN services, and it pleads willfulness based on alleged knowledge of the patent since January 2013, citing Columbitech contacts with Verizon that it says go back to 2006.
SIPCO Sues Pepperl+Fuchs in East Texas on Four Wireless Mesh Patents, Alleging a Lapsed License.
SIPCO LLC sued Pepperl+Fuchs SE in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 15, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00932. The complaint asserts four patents from one wireless mesh networking family against Pepperl+Fuchs WirelessHART adapters, gateways, and converters, alleges that Pepperl+Fuchs once licensed the family and let the license lapse, and pleads willfulness.
Vertiv's Power Distribution Unit Patent Suit Against Legrand Moves From El Paso to Delaware.
Vertiv Corporation's patent case against Legrand DPC, LLC and Legrand North America, LLC was docketed in the District of Delaware on October 15, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01326, after transfer from the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, where Vertiv filed it on March 5, 2026, as No. 3:26-cv-00636. The operative First Amended Complaint asserts U.S. Patents 9,728,918, 10,541,501, and 7,522,036 against ServerTech and Raritan rack power distribution units.
Australian Jack Maker Sues Trailer Gearbox Over a Drill-Driven Jockey Wheel Patent and Its Patent-Pending Label.
BOS Fabrication Engineering Services Pty Ltd sued Red Patriot Inc., which the complaint says does business as Trailer Gearbox, in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on October 15, 2026, No. 6:26-cv-02406. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 9,937,903 against the Speed Jack and related parts, pleads willfulness based on July 2025 notice letters, and adds a false marking count over the product's "patent pending" label.
Treace Petitions for Inter Partes Review of All 29 Claims of a Paragon 28 Bone Compression Patent.
Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review, IPR2027-00013, on October 14, 2026, challenging claims 1 to 29 of Paragon 28, Inc.'s U.S. Patent 10,123,831 on four grounds built on three references: Hartdegen, Orbay, and Mai. The petition lists the parties' Delaware litigation and three other IPR proceedings, including a petition filed the same day against the related U.S. Patent 10,932,833, as related matters.
Dyson Files a Schedule A Suit in Chicago Over Its Battery Pack Design Patent.
Dyson Technology Limited sued the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified on Schedule A in the Northern District of Illinois on October 14, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-12608, alleging that online stores operating under seller aliases sell a battery pack that infringes U.S. Design Patent D710,299. The complaint seeks temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions, an order directing online marketplaces to stop displaying the defendants' advertisements, and damages or the defendants' profits under 35 U.S.C. 289.
Three Shenzhen Sellers Seek a Declaratory Judgment Against Marvel Technology on a Mirror Photo Booth Design Patent.
Three Shenzhen companies that sell photo booth stands sued Marvel Technology (China) Co., Ltd. in the Northern District of Illinois on October 14, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-12590, seeking declarations that their stands do not infringe U.S. Design Patent D1,103,251 and that the patent is invalid. The complaint says Marvel used Walmart's patent complaint process against one plaintiff's listings in August and September 2026, and that plaintiff also sues Marvel for tortious interference under Illinois law.
USC's Suit Against Google Over Earth, Maps, and Street View Lands in Northern California With Two Overlay Patents.
University of Southern California sued Google LLC on October 27, 2025, in the Western District of Texas, No. 1:25-cv-01734, asserting U.S. Patents 8,026,929 and 8,264,504 against Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View. After the Federal Circuit ordered transfer on October 6, 2026, the case was docketed in the Northern District of California on October 15, 2026 as No. 3:26-cv-11704-LJC. The complaint quotes claim 3 of the '929 patent and claim 5 of the '504 patent for systems that overlay user-navigable 2D images inside a pre-existing 3D model. This page describes that original complaint; USC filed a First Amended Complaint on January 26, 2026, which was not available for review in this update.
On Remand, PTAB Finds Travers Prior Art Not Enabled and Again Rejects Guardant's Challenge to UW's '127 Patent
In a Final Written Decision on remand dated October 14, 2026 (Paper 59), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that Guardant Health had not shown that any of claims 1-30 of the University of Washington's U.S. Patent 10,760,127 are unpatentable. Answering the question the Federal Circuit sent back in January 2026, the Board found that Travers '075 did not enable rolling circle replication amplification followed by SMRT sequencing, so the obviousness challenge built on that embodiment failed.
Prove Identity Sues KYXStart in Delaware Over Two Digital-Identity Patents and Former Employees.
Prove Identity, Inc. sued KYXStart, Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 14, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01325, alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 12,058,528 and 12,200,816 and tortious interference with contract under Delaware law. The complaint says KYXStart hired Prove's former Vice President, Legal, Privacy & Product as its General Counsel and a named inventor on both patents as its Head of Product, and that Prove gave notice on March 5, 2026.
MR Licensing Sues Silicon Motion in East Texas on the Same Three Memory-Security Patents Asserted Against ADATA.
MR Licensing LLC sued Silicon Motion Technology Corporation and Silicon Motion, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 12, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00922. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of U.S. Patents 7,979,658, 8,694,776, and 9,767,303 against Silicon Motion products it describes as Trusted Computer Group (TCG) Security Subsystem Class Opal, Enterprise, and Ruby compliant drives, including FerriSSD lines. It is a companion to the ADATA suit filed the same day.
Masthead and Chabner Sue Marena in Northern Georgia Over a Reconfigurable Post-Surgery Brassiere Patent.
BFFL, LLC, doing business as Masthead, and Chabner IP Licensing, LLC sued The Marena Group, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on October 13, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-05881. The complaint asserts claims 1, 3-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 of U.S. Patent 10,681,942 against Marena post-surgery bras with drain-bulb management features, and says BFFL marked under 35 U.S.C. 287.
SurvMatic Sues Arlo in Delaware on a Digital Camera Surveillance Patent.
SurvMatic LLC sued Arlo Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 12, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01303, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,688,203, titled Surveillance Device by Use of Digital Cameras Linked to a Cellular or Wireless Telephone. Claim numbers and specific Arlo products appear in Exhibit 2 charts, which are not summarized here.
Secure Ink Sues ICE Mortgage Technology in Delaware on a Paperless Mortgage Closing Patent.
Secure Ink LLC sued ICE Mortgage Technology, Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 12, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01304, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,822,690, titled Paperless Process for Mortgage Closings and Other Applications. Claim numbers and specific products appear in Exhibit 2 charts, which are not summarized here.
Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Piranha's Ad-Insertion Patents Against Hulu Under Section 101.
On October 14, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Piranha Media Distribution LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2025-1038. The nonprecedential opinion, by Judge Cunningham, joined by Judges Taranto and Hughes, holds that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 10,986,403 and 11,463,768, represented by claim 1 of the '403 patent, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The court does not reach Hulu's argument that a 2020 Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision precluded the eligibility fight.
Commission Declines to Review a Default Against Nanomics in 337-TA-1508 and Sets Remedy Submissions.
On October 13, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined not to review an initial determination finding the sole respondent, Nanomics Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of Hangzhou, China, in default in Investigation No. 337-TA-1508. The notice, FR Doc. 2026-21100, is on public inspection and is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2026. Remedy, public interest, and bonding submissions are due October 30, with replies due November 6.
OmniVision Sues SmartSens in Northern California on Four CMOS Image Sensor Patents.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. sued four defendants, SmartSens Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and three related companies, in the Northern District of California on October 13, 2026, No. 3:26-cv-11809, alleging infringement of at least claim 1 of U.S. Patents 8,507,964, 10,224,364, 10,411,063, and 9,966,396. The complaint points to CMOS image sensors, including the SC485SL and SC220AT, and asks for damages and a permanent injunction.
Sensay Sues Samsung in East Texas on Twelve Resource Map and IMS Gateway Patents.
Sensay Technologies LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 13, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00926. The complaint asserts five Resource Map patents and seven IMS Gateway patents against Galaxy smartphones and tablets, and it charts one representative claim of each patent.
MR Licensing Sues ADATA in East Texas on Three Memory-Security Patents.
MR Licensing LLC sued ADATA Technology Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on October 12, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00921. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of U.S. Patents 7,979,658, 8,694,776, and 9,767,303 against ADATA and XPG products it describes as including all "Trusted Computer Group (TCG) Security Subsystem Class (SSC) Opal, Enterprise and Ruby compliant drives."
ITC Orders 337-TA-1526 Instituted on Vicor's Vertical Power Delivery Complaint Against 20 Respondents, Including Delta, Infineon, Monolithic Power Systems, Quanta, and Foxconn.
On October 9, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission ordered that Investigation No. 337-TA-1526 be instituted on Vicor Corporation's complaint over vertical power delivery systems used to power AI accelerators, GPUs, TPUs, and CPUs in data center and cloud computing systems. The investigation covers claims 1-8, 11-14, 18-26, 40-56, 65-71, 80, 81, 83, 84, 90-93, and 95 of U.S. Patent 10,903,734. The notice was published on October 14, 2026, at 91 Fed. Reg. 65254, which instituted the investigation under 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1). The notice says the Commission is interested in a thorough domestic industry record, including the role of third-party expenditures and expenditures made outside the United States.
Cytek Files an ITC Complaint Against Beckman Coulter Over Spectral Flow Cytometry Systems (DN 3943).
The U.S. International Trade Commission has received a section 337 complaint filed October 8, 2026 on behalf of Cytek Biosciences, Inc., Certain Spectral Flow Cytometry Systems and Components Thereof, DN 3943, naming Beckman Coulter, Inc. and Beckman Coulter Biotechnology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. The receipt notice was published on October 14, 2026, at 91 Fed. Reg. 65257. It does not institute an investigation. Public interest comments on Cytek's request for exclusion and cease and desist orders are due October 22, 2026.
Pipeline Contractor John Anderson Construction Sues Rival EnCompass Over a Pig Loader, Quoting EnCompass's Reply Letter.
John Anderson Construction, Inc. sued EnCompass Pipeline, LLC in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 8, 2026, No. 4:26-cv-03004, alleging that a pig loader device EnCompass makes and uses infringes claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,989,186 and claims 1, 8, and 18 of U.S. Patent 11,644,145. The complaint pleads willfulness from a June 24, 2026 demand letter and quotes EnCompass's August 3 reply, and it asks for a permanent injunction.
Local Interest Sues Choice Hotels Over Its Mobile App on Two Expired Location-Search Patents.
Local Interest, LLC sued Choice Hotels International, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00920, alleging that the Choice Hotels mobile app for iOS and Android infringes claim 4 of U.S. Patent 7,532,899 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,774,834. The '834 patent expired in November 2024 and the '899 patent in August 2026, the complaint seeks monetary damages only, and it is Local Interest's seventh suit in the district on the same two patents and claims.
Judge Gilstrap Partly Grants Dell's Motion and Holds Cloud Byte's '273 Patent Invalid After Finding an Infringement Theory Matched Dell's Prior Art Case, and Rules Out Direct Infringement of the '544 Patent for Servers With Fewer Than Three Drives.
In an order signed October 9, 2026 memorializing September 23 pretrial rulings in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00637 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted in part Dell's motion and entered summary judgment that U.S. Patent 10,628,273 is invalid, finding that one of Cloud Byte's infringement theories matched Dell's invalidity case, under the maxim that which infringes, if earlier, invalidates. He also granted partial summary judgment of no direct infringement of U.S. Patent 7,739,544 for servers with fewer than three drives and denied seven expert challenges.
Oribel Loses Pre-Suit Damages Against Carter's and Skip Hop After Failing to Show Reasonable Marking Efforts.
In an order signed October 9, 2026 in Oribel Pte. Ltd. v. Carter's Retail, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00977 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted summary judgment of no pre-suit damages and no pre-suit willful infringement on U.S. Patent 10,736,437, finding that Oribel "failed to show reasonable efforts to ensure substantial compliance for marking." The court denied summary judgment on lost profits and on noninfringement of claim 18, and the defendants have withdrawn their invalidity defenses.
Howmet Sues Accuride in Delaware Over a Heavy-Duty Aluminum Wheel With a Chamfered Hub Bore.
Howmet Aerospace Inc. sued Accuride Corporation in the District of Delaware on October 9, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01301, alleging that Accuride's Accu-Lite 22.5 x 8.25 tubeless aluminum wheel, product number 43644, infringes at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,738,595. Howmet asks for a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283 and pleads knowledge "since at least the filing of this Complaint."
Innovations In Memory Asserts Five Storage Patents From the Former Violin Memory Portfolio Against HPE Alletra, XP8, and ProLiant Products.
Innovations In Memory LLC (IIM) sued Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in the Eastern District of Texas on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00918, asserting five storage patents against Alletra arrays, XP8 systems, and Gen11 ProLiant and Apollo servers. The complaint pleads willfulness from notice letters dated August 2022, August 2024, and January 2025, and it does not ask for an injunction.
Flycatcher, Maker of smART Sketcher, Sues Over the Yoture AI Drawing Projector Under a Patent Issued in July.
Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. sued Futurpals Co. Limited, doing business as Yoturetoys, in the Central District of California on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-11817, alleging that the Yoture drawing projector and its companion app infringe at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,688,791, issued July 21, 2026. It asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction, including removal of the product's listings.
Wheel Pros Sues Katana Racing Over the Lock Off-Road Grit Wheel Under a 2025 Design Patent.
Wheel Pros, LLC sued Katana Racing, Inc., doing business as Lock Off-Road Wheels, in the Central District of California on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-11803, alleging that Katana's Grit wheels infringe U.S. Design Patent D1,091,427. The complaint says Katana did not respond to cease-and-desist letters sent in August 2026, and it seeks the greatest of Katana's total profits under 35 U.S.C. 289, lost profits or a reasonable royalty, or statutory damages.
Mago Barca IP Sues SK hynix in Texas on Five Former TSMC Patents, Accusing HBM3 and DDR4 Memory.
Mago Barca IP LLC sued SK hynix Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 8, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00916, asserting five patents on TSV metal pads, die stacking, and source/drain contact spacers against SK hynix HBM3 and DDR4 products. SK hynix filed its declaratory judgment suit in California the same day, on these five patents and three others, and Mago Barca seeks damages and an ongoing royalty, not an injunction.
BT Wearables Sues Xiaomi Over Watches and Smart Bands, Seeking an Injunction Only on Two Smart Watch Patents.
BT Wearables LLC sued five Xiaomi entities in the Eastern District of Texas on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00919, asserting six wearable-device patents against Xiaomi watches, Smart Bands, and the Mi Fitness app. The complaint says four of the patents expired on June 30, 2026, and seeks past damages on those, while asking for a permanent injunction only on U.S. Patents 10,610,111 and 12,544,008.
Acushnet Sues Cole Haan Over GrandPro All-Day Golf Shoes, Citing an August Demand Letter and Cole Haan's Denial.
Acushnet Company, whose brands include FootJoy, sued Cole Haan LLC in the District of Massachusetts on October 9, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-14592, alleging that Cole Haan's men's and women's GrandPro All-Day Golf shoes infringe at least claim 1 of two outsole traction patents. The complaint says Acushnet sent a demand letter on August 12, 2026, that Cole Haan denied infringement on August 24, and it asks for a permanent injunction and treble damages for willful infringement.
YETI Sues Bedgear Over Its Performance Dog Bed on Two Utility and Three Design Patents, Seeking a Recall.
YETI Coolers, LLC sued Bedgear, LLC in the Eastern District of New York on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-06538, alleging that Bedgear's Performance Dog Bed infringes two utility patents and three design patents on pet beds. YETI asks for an injunction, Bedgear's profits under 35 U.S.C. 289, and an order requiring Bedgear to recall and refund sold beds.
Skip Hop Sues Kids2 in Atlanta Over the Ingenuity Create Up High Chair, Charting a Combination High Chair and Step Stool Claim.
Skip Hop, Inc. sued Kids2, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia on October 9, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-05856, alleging that the Ingenuity Proper Positioner Create Up Multi-Mode Deluxe Folding High Chair, SKUs 16870 and 16871, infringes U.S. Patent 11,172,764. The complaint charts claim 2 in its body and asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction.
Two Amazon Sellers Ask a New York Court to Declare a Portable Oil Pump Patent Invalid After Their Listings Were Removed.
Hangzhou Checheng Technology Co., Ltd. and Hongkong Jianfeng Electronic Technology Co., Limited sued Star Smart Limited in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:26-cv-08974, on October 11, 2026, seeking declarations that U.S. Patent 12,473,848 is invalid and not infringed. They also assert tortious interference under New York law and ask the court to order the withdrawal of the Amazon complaint and patent evaluation assertion that led to the removal of their listings.
SmallRig Files for a Declaratory Judgment in Seattle, Saying Videndum Invoked Amazon APEX on a Camera Support Head Patent.
SmallRig Limited sued Videndum Media Solutions S.p.A. in the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-03856, seeking declarations that its camera support products do not infringe U.S. Patent 12,650,199 and that the patent's claims are invalid as obvious. The complaint says Videndum, identified in Amazon's notice as doing business as Manfrotto, executed an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) agreement asserting claim 1 on September 18, 2026, and that Amazon sent SmallRig notice the same day.
Shenzhen Peishi Sues Nine Amazon Sellers in Nevada Over Automatic Cocktail Smokers.
Shenzhen Peishi Advertising Media Co., Ltd. sued nine Amazon seller entities in the District of Nevada on October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-03326, alleging that their automatic smoker products infringe at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,324,440. The complaint joins the sellers in one case under 35 U.S.C. 299, alleging the accused products are the same in all respects relevant to the patent.
Inventor Sues the GODONLIF US Amazon Seller in Chicago Over a Candle Warmer Lamp Design.
Haihua Zhou sued Hefeibiluandianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, which does business as GODONLIF US, an Amazon storefront, in the Northern District of Illinois on October 9, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-12395, alleging that its candle warmer lamps in nine color configurations infringe U.S. Design Patent D1,099,404. The complaint asks for an injunction and an order to remove the Amazon listings.
Inventor Files Pro Se Patent Suit Against Bug Bite Thing in Florida After Three New Jersey Suits Were Dismissed.
Linwood Cutchins, representing himself, sued Bug Bite Thing, Inc. in the Southern District of Florida in a complaint entered on the docket October 9, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-14407, alleging that the Bug Bite Thing suction tool infringes U.S. Patent 11,399,979. The complaint does not name an asserted claim; it says a claim chart will be submitted later.
Torras and Co-Petitioners File Parallel IPR and PGR Petitions Against All 39 Claims of a Rokform Magnetic Phone Case Patent.
Shenzhen Torras Technology Co., Ltd. and three other petitioners filed a petition for inter partes review, IPR2027-00012, and a petition for post-grant review, PGR2027-00004, both dated October 10, 2026, challenging all 39 claims of Rokform IP LLC's U.S. Patent 12,656,835. The PGR petition argues the claims are not entitled to their 2012 priority dates, and the petitioners ask the Board to institute one petition or the other depending on how it resolves that question.
MIT Sues Amazon Web Services in Massachusetts on Two PUF Patents, Accusing Synopsys SRAM PUF Technology Used With FreeRTOS and AWS Cloud Services.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology sued Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts on October 9, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-14600, on U.S. Patents 7,681,103 and 7,818,569, both directed to generating device-specific values from fabrication variation. The complaint says Amazon uses Synopsys' SRAM PUF technology, including with Amazon FreeRTOS on the NXP LPC54018 IoT Module, and it points to Intrinsic ID's status as an AWS Partner Network technology partner. It asks for damages under 35 U.S.C. 284. MIT filed a parallel suit on the same patents against Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00400.
SK hynix Asks a California Court to Declare That Its HBM and DRAM Products Do Not Infringe Eight Former TSMC Patents Held by Mago Barca IP.
SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc. sued Longhorn IP LLC and Mago Barca IP LLC (MBIP) in the Northern District of California on October 8, 2026, No. 3:26-cv-11609, seeking declarations that SK hynix does not infringe eight U.S. patents that TSMC assigned to MBIP in March 2025, and that claims of seven of them are invalid. The complaint says the defendants have accused SK hynix HBM devices, and DRAM for one patent, in letters and five videoconferences since June 2025. It also asks the court to permanently bar the defendants from asserting the patents against any third party based on any alleged use of SK hynix's accused products. The same day, Mago Barca IP filed its own suit against SK hynix Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00916.
Nex-X Silicon Sues AMD in Texas on Four Patents From Freescale Inventors, Accusing Ryzen and EPYC Processors.
Nex-X Silicon LLC sued Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, on October 7, 2026, No. 7:26-cv-00411, on four U.S. patents whose inventions, the complaint says, were conceived by Freescale Semiconductor employees. The complaint accuses Ryzen 5 5000 Series and EPYC 9004 and 9005 Series processors of infringing power control, cache error handling, multi-thread store buffer, and partitioned interrupt claims, and it asks for damages of at least a reasonable royalty and a permanent injunction.
ETRI and the Industry-Cooperation Arms of Three Korean Universities Sue Disney in Delaware on Five HEVC Patents, Accusing Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN Streaming.
The Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and the industry-cooperation arms of Kyung Hee University, Korea Aerospace University, and Kwangwoon University sued The Walt Disney Company and eight affiliates in the District of Delaware on October 7, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01290. The complaint alleges that the H.265/HEVC encoding, decoding, and transcoding behind Disney+, Hulu, Hulu Live, and ESPN infringes five patents offered through the Access Advance Video Distribution Patent pool, pleads willfulness, and asks the court to declare that the plaintiffs met their RAND obligations. It does not expressly seek an injunction.
Multimedia Technologies Sues Walmart in Texas Over Onn Roku and Google TV Products, Saying the License From Its Vizio Settlement Does Not Cover Them.
Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. sued Walmart Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 8, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00912, on two smart TV patents that originated with Flextronics. The complaint accuses Onn Roku TVs, Onn Google TVs, and Onn streaming devices with Google TV, and says the license Multimedia and Walmart entered into in December 2025, in connection with resolving Multimedia's suit against Walmart's subsidiary Vizio, did not cover Onn TVs or streaming devices that do not use the Vizio platform. It pleads willfulness on information and belief and seeks damages.
Boston Scientific Files a Second Delaware Suit Against Atraverse, Asserting a Newly Issued Tissue Puncture Patent Against HOTWIRE.
Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Medical Device Limited sued Atraverse Medical, Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 7, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01294, on U.S. Patent 12,733,955, which issued September 15, 2026. The complaint asserts at least claims 1 and 22 against Atraverse's HOTWIRE guidewire, alleging infringement on information and belief, and pleads willful infringement. It asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction and lost profits, and it ties the new patent to the same family as the five patents Boston Scientific already asserts against Atraverse in an earlier Delaware case.
ITC Terminates Netlist's 337-TA-1472 DRAM Investigation Against Samsung, Google, and Super Micro on Settlement.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination granting an unopposed motion to terminate Investigation No. 337-TA-1472 based on settlement between Netlist, Inc. and the Samsung respondents, and the investigation is terminated. The Commission voted October 6, 2026. The settlement motion said the agreements also resolve the dispute between Netlist and any remaining respondents that receive their accused products from Samsung. The notice was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2026 (91 FR 64678).
ITC Confirms HydraFacial's 337-TA-1408 Investigation Is Terminated as Moot After the Federal Circuit Vacated the Violation Finding.
In a notice published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2026 (91 FR 64676), the Commission confirmed that Investigation No. 337-TA-1408, brought by HydraFacial LLC against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, is terminated as moot. The Federal Circuit had vacated the Commission's March 2026 final determination finding a violation after the only patent in the case, U.S. Patent 11,865,287, expired while Cartessa's appeal was pending. HydraFacial, an intervenor in the appeal, opposed vacatur.
Judge Gilstrap Keeps Advanced Integrated Circuit Process's Patent Case Against TSMC in Marshall.
In a memorandum opinion and order signed October 7, 2026, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.'s motion under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to transfer Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's suit to the Northern District of California. The court held that TSMC had not shown the case could have been brought there, because TSMC's motion said it is not subject to personal jurisdiction anywhere in the United States in this matter, and it added that the convenience factors do not show the Northern District is clearly more convenient.
ITC Votes to Institute 337-TA-1525 on trinamiX's Six-Patent Complaint Against Apple Over iPhones and iPads.
On October 5, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission ordered that Investigation No. 337-TA-1525 be instituted on the section 337 complaint of trinamiX Sensing LLC and trinamiX GmbH against Apple Inc. The notice, issued October 6 and published in the Federal Register on October 8, lists specific claims of six patents, defines the accused products as iPhones and iPads and components thereof incorporating face authentication, 3D-sensing, and/or material detection capabilities, and says the Commission is interested in a thorough record on domestic industry, including the extent to which the allegations rely on third-party expenditures and on expenditures made outside the United States.
Municipal Parking Services Sues PRRS and LAZ Parking in Austin on a Parking Patent Issued the Same Day.
Municipal Parking Services, Inc. sued Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. and two LAZ Parking entities in the Western District of Texas on October 6, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-02838, the day U.S. Patent 12,755,580 issued. The complaint alleges that PRRS's camera-based parking monitoring and violation notice systems, including at LAZ-operated lots in Austin, infringe at least claim 1. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants had been monitoring the application and knew before filing that its claims had been allowed, pleads willful infringement at least as of filing, and asks for an injunction.
Activemap Files a New Round of Eastern District of Texas Suits Over Retail Store Locator Maps.
Activemap LLC opened 15 cases against retailers in the Eastern District of Texas on October 6, 2026, including patent suits against Warby Parker, Target, and Sherwin-Williams. The six complaints reviewed here allege that the defendants' website store locators infringed at least claim 2 of U.S. Patent 8,468,464 and at least claim 1 of U.S. Patents 10,444,943 and 10,908,782 during the patents' terms. They seek damages, including treble damages for willful infringement based on alleged willful blindness, and do not ask for an injunction.
Flow Motion Sues Tonal Over Three Exercise-Monitoring Patents, Citing Form Feedback and Dynamic Weight Features.
Flow Motion Research and Development Ltd. sued Tonal Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 5, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00889, alleging that Tonal 1, Tonal 2, and Tonal's remote computing systems infringe U.S. Patents 9,987,520, 11,745,055, and 12,157,035 on sensor-based exercise monitoring. The complaint pleads willfulness based only on knowledge from the suit itself and does not ask for an injunction.
NextGen Sues CoreWeave Over 100G PAM4 Transceivers, Citing CoreWeave's Plano Datacenter.
NextGen Innovations, LLC sued CoreWeave, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 2, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00879, alleging that pluggable optical transceiver modules CoreWeave used in its network, exemplified by an NVIDIA 100G PAM4 QSFP28 module, infringed U.S. Patents 9,887,795, 10,263,723, and 10,771,181. The complaint seeks damages and does not ask for an injunction.
NextGen Sues Microsoft Over 100G and 400ZR Optical Transceiver Modules.
NextGen Innovations, LLC sued Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas on October 2, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00880, alleging that Microsoft infringed U.S. Patents 9,887,795, 10,263,723, and 10,771,181 through pluggable optical transceivers, including 100G PAM4 and 400ZR coherent modules, and alleging on information and belief that it operated modules of the accused type at datacenter facilities in the district. The complaint pleads inducement and a 2024 notice letter, and its prayer asks for a judgment of willful infringement and enhanced damages; it does not ask for an injunction.
MR Access Sues Philips in Texas, Accusing MultiTransmit 3T MRI Systems of Infringing Two Patents.
MR Access Inc. sued Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 2, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00881, alleging that Philips 3T MRI systems with MultiTransmit parallel RF transmission infringed U.S. Patent 6,969,992 during its term and infringe U.S. Patent RE47,026, and pleading willfulness based in part on citations of the patents, or of their published applications, during the prosecution of Philips patent applications. The prayer limits its request for a permanent injunction or a compulsory ongoing licensing fee to the RE47,026 patent.
Flash Uplink Sues Rapid7 Over Metasploit and Insight Security Products.
Flash Uplink LLC sued Rapid7, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on October 2, 2026, No. 7:26-cv-00401, alleging that Metasploit, InsightVM, Remediation Hub, and other Rapid7 security products infringe U.S. Patent 8,230,497 on identifying software vulnerabilities. The complaint asks for a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283 and a willfulness judgment.
Federal Circuit Orders USC's Patent Suit Against Google Transferred From Austin to the Northern District of California.
In a nonprecedential order issued October 6, 2026 on Google's petition for a writ of mandamus, No. 2026-157, the Federal Circuit held that the Western District of Texas's denial of transfer was patently erroneous, vacated that order, and directed the district court to grant Google's motion to the extent that the University of Southern California's patent suit over Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View is transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The panel said the willing witnesses, sources of proof, and local interest factors favor transfer and that no factor disfavors it.
MR Access Sues GE HealthCare in Delaware, Accusing SIGNA MRI Systems of Infringing Three Patents.
MR Access Inc. sued GE HealthCare Technologies, Inc. and GE Medical Systems, LLC in the District of Delaware on October 2, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01277, alleging that GE's SIGNA MRI systems, including features GE markets as MultiDrive RF Transmit and AIR Technology, infringed U.S. Patent 6,969,992 during its term and infringe U.S. Patents RE47,026 and 9,847,471, and pleading willfulness. The prayer limits its request for a permanent injunction or a compulsory ongoing royalty to the RE47,026 and 9,847,471 patents.
Camada Solutions Sues Discord in Delaware, Asserting a TV Widget Patent Against Its Game Overlay, Meta Quest App, and Android App.
Camada Solutions LLC sued Discord Inc. in the District of Delaware on October 2, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01276, alleging that Discord's Windows desktop app with its Game Overlay, its native Meta Quest app, and its Android app, including the Mobile Voice Overlay and mobile notifications, infringe at least claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent 8,736,764, which recite "sticky" and "sticky on change" widget modes on the display of a TV unit. The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent at least since the filing and service of the complaint, alleges no earlier knowledge, and asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction or, in lieu of a permanent injunction, an ongoing royalty.
BenShot Sues Petco in Wisconsin, Alleging Its Golf Ball and Soccer Ball Pint Glasses Infringe a Design Patent.
BenShot, LLC of Appleton, Wisconsin sued Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. and International Pet Supplies and Distribution, Inc. in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 2, 2026, No. 1:26-cv-01829, alleging that the Petco Ball is Life Golf Ball Pint Glass and the Petco Ball is Life Soccer Ball Pint Glass infringe U.S. Design Patent D859,082, Sphere Device. Along with an injunction and damages increased up to three times, the prayer asks for the defendants' profits under 35 U.S.C. 289, a recall of the accused glasses, and punitive damages.
Nokia Sues Aylo in Marshall Over H.264 Video Encoding on Seven Patents.
Nokia Technologies Oy sued five Aylo entities, including Aylo Holdings S.à r.l., which the complaint says was formerly MindGeek S.à r.l., in the Eastern District of Texas on October 2, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00882, alleging that backend processes Aylo uses to encode video into H.264-compliant formats infringe method claims of seven Nokia patents. Nokia also asks for a declaration that its asserted encoding claims carry no RAND commitment because, the complaint says, the H.264 standard specifies decoding, not encoding.
Cerence Sues Sony in Marshall Over PlayStation 5, Headphones, and Other Voice-Processing Products.
Cerence Operating Company sued Sony Group Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and Sony Electronics Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 1, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00878, on five patents, accusing products the complaint says have voice processing functionality, including the PlayStation 5 with DualSense Wireless Controller and Sony noise cancelling headphones. The suit follows Cerence's 2025 smart television cases against the same three Sony entities in Marshall and at the ITC, where twelve other entities, including TCL and TTE companies, are also respondents. The prayer asks for a permanent injunction.
Wearne Digital Sues Pfizer, Accusing Its Cold Chain Distribution of Therapeutics of Infringing a Method Claim.
Wearne Digital Pte Ltd of Singapore sued Pfizer Inc. in the Southern District of New York, No. 1:26-cv-08691, in a complaint dated October 1, 2026 and file-stamped October 2, alleging that Pfizer's cold chain and ultra-cold chain distribution of therapeutics, including the COVID-19 vaccine COMIRNATY, infringes method claim 9 of U.S. Patent 11,456,067. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction or, alternatively, an ongoing royalty, and says any requested injunction should account for continuity of access to vaccines and other therapeutics.
Federal Circuit Reverses Noninfringement on SnapPower's Cover Plate Claim 1 and Directs Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement.
In a nonprecedential opinion issued October 5, 2026, No. 2025-1422, the Federal Circuit held that the Northern District of Texas read "joined" in claim 1 of SnapPower's U.S. Patent 9,871,324 too narrowly. It reversed summary judgment of noninfringement on claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 and directed partial summary judgment of infringement on claims 1, 2, and 8 against O'Reilly Winship's BriteOWL cover plates, while affirming noninfringement on the other appealed claims of the '324 patent and of U.S. Patent 9,035,180.
Federal Circuit Holds Simon's Indemnity Claim Against Blackhawk Was Not Moot and Directs Dismissal Without Prejudice.
In a nonprecedential opinion issued October 5, 2026, No. 2025-1138, the Federal Circuit held that the Eastern District of Texas erred in treating Simon Property Group's third-party indemnification claim against Blackhawk Network as moot after summary judgment of noninfringement on AlexSam's U.S. Patent 6,000,608. Relying on both parties' agreement, the court vacated the order denying Simon's post-judgment motion and directed dismissal of the indemnification claim without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling That Pioneer's Herbicide-Degrading Enzyme Claims Are Not Enabled.
In a nonprecedential opinion issued October 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in post-grant review PGR2023-00022 that claims 1 through 33 of Pioneer Hi-Bred International's U.S. Patent 11,371,055 are unpatentable for lack of enablement. The court held that the Board could rely on Pioneer's own test data generated after the priority date. Inari Agriculture brought the challenge.
Judge Barker Strikes Moderna's Bayh-Dole License Defenses in Northwestern's Vaccine Patent Suit.
On September 30, 2026, Judge J. Campbell Barker, presiding in the District of Delaware, dismissed two of Moderna's counterclaims and struck four of its affirmative defenses that relied on the federal government's Bayh-Dole Act license to Northwestern University's patents, holding that the license gives a private company no defense or claim of its own. The theory covered about 500 million Spikevax doses Moderna sold to the government. Moderna's separate defense under 28 U.S.C. 1498(a) remains pending and waits on the Federal Circuit's decision in Arbutus v. Moderna.
Malikie Sues Arcadyan on Four Wi-Fi Patents Over Carrier Gateways and Extenders.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. sued Arcadyan Technology Corporation of Taiwan in the Eastern District of Texas on September 30, 2026, No. 2:26-cv-00876, alleging that Arcadyan routers, gateways, and Wi-Fi extenders infringe four patents the complaint treats as essential to IEEE 802.11 standards. The complaint pleads a licensing history that began with a January 10, 2025 letter and says Arcadyan never accepted Malikie's FRAND rate or proposed one of its own. These are allegations.
Takeda Sues Zydus Over Proposed Generic EOHILIA.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and ViroPharma Biologics LLC sued Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. in the District of New Jersey on September 30, 2026, No. 3:26-cv-12849, after Zydus filed ANDA No. 221618 for a generic version of EOHILIA, budesonide oral suspension 2 mg/10 mL, with a Paragraph IV certification. The complaint asserts two Orange Book patents. These are allegations.
Netlist Files a New ITC DRAM Complaint Naming Micron, NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Google (DN 3939).
On October 1, 2026, the Federal Register published the Commission's notice that it received a section 337 complaint filed September 28, 2026, on behalf of Netlist, Inc., captioned Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (IV), DN 3939. The complaint names Micron Technology, Micron Semiconductor Products, NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Google. The notice records receipt of the complaint. It does not institute an investigation.
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Satius Patent Claims for Lack of Enablement, Not Indefiniteness.
On October 1, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware judgment that claims 1, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent 6,711,385 are invalid, in Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2025-1446. The precedential opinion rejects the district court's indefiniteness ruling but holds that the same scientifically impossible claim language leaves the claims non-enabled. In a companion nonprecedential opinion, No. 2025-1444, the court dismissed Satius' appeal from a reexamination rejection of claim 1 as moot.
Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in Teva v. Lilly; Judge Dyk Dissents.
On September 30, 2026, the Federal Circuit denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on Eli Lilly and Company's petition in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 2024-1094. The order leaves in place the April 16, 2026 panel decision that reversed a District of Massachusetts judgment holding Teva's anti-CGRP antibody headache-treatment claims invalid for lack of written description and enablement. Judge Dyk dissented, writing that the panel's holding "creates confusion as to the enablement standards for method claims."
Federal Circuit Dismisses ParkerVision's Qualcomm Appeal for Lack of a Final Judgment.
On September 30, 2026, in a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed ParkerVision's appeal from the Middle District of Florida, Nos. 2026-1033 and 2026-1035, for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a Rule 54(b) judgment on only the receiver claims of U.S. Patent 6,091,940 was not final while that patent's transmitter claims remained pending, and that the district court never made the express no-just-reason-for-delay determination needed to appeal the judgment on U.S. Patent 7,218,907 alone. It also denied ParkerVision's request to reassign the case.
Federal Circuit Vacates the Denial of Sanctions and Fees in Epic Tech v. Pen-Tech.
On September 30, 2026, in a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated the Northern District of Georgia's denial of Pen-Tech's motions for Rule 11 sanctions and for fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, 28 U.S.C. 1927, and the court's inherent power in Epic Tech, LLC v. Pen-Tech Associates, Inc., No. 2025-1624. The court held that the order did not permit meaningful review of Pen-Tech's theory that Alice, Patent Office section 101 rejections in related applications, and a Texas ruling on a related patent put Epic Tech on notice of potential invalidity. It did not decide whether sanctions or fees are owed.
Delaware Federal Court Keeps Infringement Verdicts Against Anker and Gogo but Grants JMOL of No Damages.
On September 29, 2026, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware upheld a jury's infringement findings against Anker but reduced its $13,638,219 damages award to zero in Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-00339. The next day, in the same court, Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation, upheld infringement, validity, and willfulness findings against Gogo but granted judgment as a matter of law of no damages in SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00266. Both courts held that the patentee failed to apportion.
Applications Technologies Sues D6 Over Food-Packaging Patents and Trade Secrets.
On September 29, 2026, Applications Technologies, Inc. sued D6, LLC and Edward Dominion in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas, No. 4:26-cv-01403, and filed a corrected complaint the next day. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 10,836,551 and 12,486,093, on resealable, perforated food packaging, and trade-secret misappropriation under federal and Texas law, after D6 terminated a 2020 license in 2023. These are allegations.
ITC Finds Section 337 Violation by Klein Tools on Two Milwaukee and Keter Patents, 337-TA-1409.
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission determined to find a violation of section 337 by Klein Tools, Inc. with respect to two of the three patents Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation and Keter Home and Garden Products Ltd. asserted in Inv. No. 337-TA-1409. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order and set an 18 percent bond for the Presidential review period. It has not reached a final determination on the third patent and extended the target date to November 2, 2026.
Corteva and Inari Settle During Jury Trial; Delaware Court Orders Seed Materials Destroyed and Dismisses With Prejudice.
Corteva and Inari settled their seed patent and plant variety protection case in the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-01059, during a jury trial that began September 23, 2026. On September 28, Judge John F. Murphy entered a stipulated order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The order requires Inari to destroy defined Corteva biological and restricted materials within 30 days and to give Corteva a declaration confirming destruction within 45 days, and it keeps the court's jurisdiction to enforce the confidential settlement.
ITC Issues General Exclusion Order in Epson Ink Cartridge Investigation, 337-TA-1451.
On September 29, 2026, the Federal Register published the Commission's final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1451, Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof I, at 91 Fed. Reg. 61436. The notice title says the Commission issued a limited exclusion order. The summary and the determination say the Commission issued a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders against Mountain Peak, Inc. and Straightouttaink, LP, and a bond of 100 percent of entered value during Presidential review. The Commission voted on September 23, 2026.
PulseLink Sues NVIDIA Over Five Networking Patents.
On September 29, 2026, PulseLink Systems, LLC sued NVIDIA Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The case is No. 2:26-cv-00875-JRG-RSP. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 7,804,785, 8,300,614, 8,351,431, 8,565,230, and 8,369,220. These are allegations.
FaceToFace Sues Apple Over Biometric Notification Previews.
On September 28, 2026, FaceToFace Biometrics, Inc. sued Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:26-cv-01534-CDP. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent 12,536,263, issued January 27, 2026, and points at notification previews on iPhone, iPad, and Mac devices that the complaint says are gated by Face ID or Touch ID. These are allegations.
Judge Bryson Denies Moderna and Pfizer Motions to Dismiss Bayer's Codon-Substitution Patent Suits.
On September 28, 2026, Judge William C. Bryson, signing as a United States Circuit Judge, denied Rule 12(b)(6) motions in Bayer CropScience LLC v. Moderna, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00012, and Bayer CropScience LLC v. Pfizer Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00013 (D. Del.). The opinion addresses pleading and section 101 arguments on U.S. Patent 7,741,118. Denial of the motions is not a finding of infringement or a final judgment that the patent is valid.
The Commission Institutes the Powered Recliner Investigation, 337-TA-1524.
The Federal Register published the notice of institution for Investigation No. 337-TA-1524 on September 28, 2026, at 91 FR 61249. Under 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), that publication institutes the investigation. The Commission ordered institution on September 22, 2026, and the Secretary issued the notice on September 23. The notice names Ultra-Mek, Incorporated, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, and L&P Property Management Company as complainants. Institution is not a merits finding.
Federal Circuit Affirms Section 101 Judgment for Google on AudienceScience's Ad-Targeting Patent Claims.
On September 25, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California's judgment on the pleadings that the asserted claims of three AudienceScience internet-advertising patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and held that AudienceScience forfeited its request for a chance to amend.
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness of Zentian Speech-Recognition Patent Against Apple.
On September 25, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision holding all claims of Zentian's U.S. Patent 10,062,377 unpatentable as obvious in an Apple-filed inter partes review, including the Board's reading of "feature vector" to cover Jiang's vector-quantized codewords.
Jury Awards Taction $5.72 Billion Against Apple Over iPhone and Apple Watch Haptics.
On September 25, 2026, a jury in the Southern District of California found that Apple infringed claims 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent 10,659,885 and claim 16 of U.S. Patent 10,820,117, found the infringement not willful, and awarded Taction Technology $5,721,961,750. The court's minute entry records the verdict for Taction on Apple's invalidity defenses. The case, No. 3:21-cv-00812, reached trial after the Federal Circuit vacated a 2023 summary judgment for Apple. As of a September 29 order, no judgment had been entered, and the court set October 16, 2026 as the deadline for post-trial motions under Rules 50(b) and 59.
PowerWatch Sues Nanya on Two Expired DRAM Patents.
On September 24, 2026, PowerWatch Systems LLC sued Nanya Technology Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, No. 2:26-cv-00871. The complaint asserts at least claim 11 of U.S. Patent 7,281,079 and at least claims 6, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent 7,432,731 against Nanya DRAM parts. It says both patents have expired. The prayer seeks damages for past infringement.
Malikie Sues Crypto.com on Four Cryptography Patents.
On September 22, 2026, Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. sued Foris DAX, Inc. d/b/a Crypto.com, Foris DAX Asia Pte. Ltd., and Foris Holdings KY Limited in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00864. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of four patents covering digital signatures, a Montgomery-style reduction, a power-analysis countermeasure, and securing a communication link. Google Patents lists the '197 patent as expired on May 4, 2026. The prayer seeks an injunction on the other three.
Ampack Sues Hithium Over Lithium-Ion Battery Patents.
On September 23, 2026, Xiamen Ampack Technology Limited sued Xiamen Hithium Energy Storage Technology Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, No. 2:26-cv-00870. The complaint asserts six patents and reproduces claim 1 of each against a Hithium 314Ah lithium iron phosphate cell, then treats that cell as representative of a broader catalog of cells, modules, and energy-storage systems. It alleges a Mesquite, Texas address for one Hithium U.S. entity.
ASSIA Sues Comcast Over Xfinity Wi-Fi and Network-Management Patents.
On September 23, 2026, Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. and ASSIA SPE, LLC sued four Comcast entities in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, No. 2:26-cv-00868, on seven patents the complaint says cover Xfinity's cloud Wi-Fi management, xFi Pods mesh networking, the Xfinity app, and DOCSIS 3.1 features. Five days earlier, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement against ASSIA in the Northern District of California.
Linton Crystal Sues Zhejiang Jingsheng Over Crystal-Puller Seed Lifts.
On September 22, 2026, Linton Crystal Technologies Corp. sued Zhejiang Jingsheng Mechanical & Electrical Co., Ltd. (JSG) in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, No. 2:26-cv-00863. The complaint asserts two patents on the seed-lift mechanism of CZ crystal-growth pullers, the machines that grow single-crystal silicon for semiconductor and solar production, and accuses JSG pullers including the TDR160P series, pointing to U.S. import records of 2024 shipments.
IOENGINE Sues Samsung Over Tunneling Portable-Device Patents.
On September 22, 2026, IOENGINE, LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, No. 2:26-cv-00866. The complaint asserts five patents in one family, priority March 23, 2004, all titled as a tunneling client access point. It alleges that Samsung smartwatches and fitness bands, wireless earbuds, portable drives, and Galaxy smartphones borrow a larger terminal's screen, controls, or network connection, and it asks for an injunction only on the '006 patent, the one patent it pleads as unexpired.
ITC Institutes Willow Wearable Breast-Pump Investigation Against Anker and Others.
On September 21, 2026, the Commission ordered institution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1522, Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof, on a complaint Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. filed August 20, 2026. The September 22 notice (published September 24) names twelve respondents, including Anker Innovations Limited, with addresses in China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and the United States, and puts five patents into the investigation. Institution is not a merits finding.
UnaliWear Files ITC Complaint Over Wearable Activity and Health Monitors (DN 3937).
On September 21, 2026, UnaliWear, Inc. filed a section 337 complaint captioned Certain Wearable Activity and Health Monitoring Devices and Systems Containing Same, DN 3937. The Federal Register receipt notice published September 24 names Samsung, Google, and Garmin entities as proposed respondents. Receipt is not institution.
ITC Issues General Exclusion Order in Absorption-Refrigeration Boiler-Protection Probe.
On September 21, 2026, the Commission found a section 337 violation in Investigation No. 337-TA-1453, Certain Boiler Protection for Absorption Refrigeration Systems and Components Thereof, and issued a general exclusion order plus cease and desist orders against four defaulting respondents. The Federal Register notice published September 24. The investigation is terminated.
Honeywell Aerospace Sues Rivian Over Driver+ and Autonomy Stack.
On September 18, 2026, Honeywell Aerospace US LLC sued Rivian Automotive, LLC and Rivian Automotive, Inc. in the District of Arizona, No. 2:26-cv-06694-MTM, assigned to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Morrissey, subject to the parties' consent. The complaint asserts the same seven patents as Honeywell's same-day Eastern District of Texas suit against Lucid, this time against Rivian Gen 1 and Gen 2 vehicles running Driver+, the Rivian Autonomy Platform, and Autonomy+, and pleads willfulness after years of notice correspondence.
Catheter Wave Sues Shockwave Over IVL Catheter Portfolio.
On September 21, 2026, Catheter Wave Innovations LLC sued Shockwave Medical, Inc. in the District of Minnesota, No. 0:26-cv-04074-KMM-JFD. The complaint asserts six intravascular lithotripsy catheter patents against Shockwave's C2, C2+, C2 Aero, L6, M5, M5+, S4, and E8 catheters used with the Shockwave IVL Generator and Connector Cable, pleads willfulness on 2021 to 2023 SanuWave correspondence and an unanswered 2026 acquisition inquiry, and notes Shockwave's announced October 1, 2026 Johnson & Johnson MedTech rebrand.
Honeywell Aerospace Sues Lucid Over DreamDrive ADAS Features.
On September 18, 2026, Honeywell Aerospace US LLC sued Lucid Group, Inc. and Lucid Group USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00841, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserts seven patents against Lucid Air and Lucid Gravity vehicles running DreamDrive / DreamDrive 2 ADAS and sensor suites, and pleads willfulness after years of notice correspondence.
NEC Sues Anker Over eufy Cameras and Home Security Stack.
On September 18, 2026, NEC Corporation sued Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Ltd. d/b/a eufy in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00847. The complaint asserts six video-surveillance and image-analysis patents against the eufy camera, doorbell, HomeBase, lock, AI, app, and server stack, and pleads willfulness on every count.
Federal Circuit Holds Object-Level Profitability Claims Patent Ineligible.
On September 21, 2026, the Federal Circuit reversed a Northern District of Illinois summary judgment of eligibility and affirmed judgment for the defendants on the alternative ground that the asserted claims of three object-level profitability patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
SF Diamond's ITC Appeal Ends by Agreement.
A September 18 nonprecedential order dismisses the appeal from Investigation No. 337-TA-1236 and issues the mandate the same day.
Shionogi Sues Zydus Over Proposed Generic RADICAVA ORS.
Shionogi's September 14 complaint asserts U.S. Patent 12,599,586 against Zydus's proposed edaravone oral suspension under ANDA 220849. It asks the court to set any FDA approval date no earlier than the patent's expiration, including claimed extensions and exclusivity.
Frontrunner Sues Pareto Mobility Over Its Step-Free Bus.
Frontrunner's September 15 complaint alleges infringement of three patents covering modular vehicles and structural panels and pleads willfulness through Pareto's founder, a former Frontrunner engineering executive who is a named inventor on the asserted patents. It seeks damages, including treble damages, and injunctive relief against Pareto Mobility.
ITC Adds LeaperKim Coyote to the Electric-Unicycle Investigation.
A Commission notice issued September 16 and published September 18 leaves in place an order adding Guangzhou Coyote d/b/a LeaperKim as a respondent. This is an amendment to an existing investigation.
Active Wireless ITC Investigation Ends After TCL and T-Mobile Settlement.
The Commission's September 15 notice, published September 18, terminates the final respondents and the investigation after leaving the ALJ's settlement-based determination unreviewed.
I received an order to show cause in my patent application or issued patent. What are the next steps?
An order to show cause is a demand that you explain, by a set deadline, why the USPTO or a court should not take a stated action. Do not ignore it. Identify who issued it, calendar the exact response date, preserve the papers, and get a registered practitioner or litigation counsel involved before you file. This page is general commentary, not legal advice for your facts.
What is a design-patent damages (article of manufacture) fight?
Design-patent damages can include the infringer's total profit on the relevant article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 289. For a product with several components, identifying that article is a separate question from calculating its profit.
What is FRAND or SEP, and how is that different from a normal patent suit?
A standard-essential patent is one whose claimed invention is needed to practice a technical standard. A declaration to a standards body is a starting point for investigation, not proof that a product infringes. FRAND describes a commitment to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.
What if the patent suit also alleges trade-secret theft?
A complaint can allege both patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation, but the claims require different proof. Identify the patent claims separately from the information the plaintiff says was secret and improperly acquired or used.
What is an inventorship dispute or correction of inventorship?
An inventorship dispute concerns who contributed to the conception of the claimed invention. Section 256 provides ways to correct inventorship on an issued patent. Its current text does not require an absence of deceptive intent.
What happens to a patent case in bankruptcy?
A bankruptcy filing can change whether a patent case or collection effort may proceed. The first questions are who filed, what relief is being pursued, and whether the automatic stay or a bankruptcy-court order applies.
What should I do if Amazon freezes my listing over a patent?
Start with the notice Amazon actually sent. Save its attachments and deadlines, identify the patent and affected listings, and establish which process is being used before choosing a response.
My competitor sent a cease and desist. Is that different from a patent owner notice?
A competitor's patent letter requires the same initial claim analysis as another owner's letter. The commercial relationship may affect your priorities, but it does not prove infringement or entitle the sender to an injunction.
How much does a patent infringement case usually cost?
Patent cases are among the more expensive commercial disputes because of claim construction, experts, discovery, and parallel PTAB or ITC work. Published industry surveys often show defense or assertion costs rising from the low six figures for early exits into seven figures or more through trial, with wide variance by stakes, district, and counsel model. Treat any number as a planning range, not a quote.
Do I need patent litigation insurance, and what does it cover?
Check the actual policy before assuming patent litigation is covered. Specialty intellectual-property insurance exists, but the insured risks, exclusions, limits, and notice requirements depend on the contract.
What is litigation finance or a third-party funder in a patent case?
Third-party litigation funding can pay legal fees or expenses in exchange for a financial return. The agreement matters: review how proceeds are divided, who controls decisions, and what must be disclosed in the court hearing the case.
What is a bond for a preliminary injunction?
A preliminary-injunction bond is security associated with temporary relief, not a payment establishing that the patent owner has won. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) addresses the amount and purpose of that security.
What is a consent judgment with a covenant not to sue?
A consent judgment, a license, and a covenant not to sue do different work. Read the signed terms and proposed court order together to understand what is resolved, what future conduct is covered, and how a dispute would be enforced.
Can I keep selling during an appeal?
An appeal does not by itself authorize continued sales. First identify the order in force: a money judgment, a district-court injunction, and an ITC exclusion order require different analysis.
How do attorneys fees under section 285 really get awarded?
Winning a patent case does not automatically shift attorney fees. Under 35 U.S.C. 285, a court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an exceptional case.
What is a walk-away settlement vs a license?
A walk-away settlement and a license answer different questions. Compare the written treatment of past claims, future sales, covered products, customers, and enforcement before deciding which arrangement resolves the business problem.
Can I submit prior art against a competitor's pending patent application?
A third-party preissuance submission lets a person present certain documents for the USPTO to consider in a pending patent application. It is a limited examination procedure with a statutory deadline, not an infringement ruling or a challenge to an issued patent.
What is the on-sale bar, and how can old sales affect a patent?
Commercial activity before a patent filing can affect patentability. An on-sale analysis requires the dates, the proposed transaction, the claimed invention, and the applicable version of section 102; the fact that a product existed earlier is not a complete analysis.
We solve the same problem with a different design. Does that mean we do not infringe?
Solving the same problem does not by itself establish infringement. For a utility patent, compare the asserted claim limitations with the product. For a design patent, the claimed appearance requires a different analysis.
Does it matter whether the letter asserts a design patent or a utility patent?
Identify whether the letter asserts a utility patent, a design patent, or both. The type of patent changes the comparison you need to make and can affect the requested damages.
What is a Rule 408 settlement meeting after a patent notice letter?
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 limits certain uses of settlement evidence. It does not make every conversation labeled settlement confidential, privileged, or unusable for every purpose.
If I keep selling after notice, does that automatically mean willful infringement?
A notice letter is a reason to investigate, not a finding of infringement. Deciding whether to continue selling requires a claim analysis, review of any operative order, and consideration of the commercial alternatives.
What is Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX), and how does it work?
Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) is a marketplace process for utility-patent disputes using a neutral evaluator. Confirm the current agreement and notice for the dispute before relying on any eligibility rule, fee, or deadline.
Why does Amazon or eBay want a court order before removing a listing for patent infringement?
A marketplace may ask for particular documents under the process being used. A request for a court order should be read against that process; it does not, by itself, establish whether the patent claim is strong or weak.
Can I get a marketplace listing taken down for patent infringement without filing a lawsuit?
Some marketplaces provide patent-reporting or evaluation procedures outside a lawsuit. Use the process actually offered for the asserted right and listing; the platform decision and any court proceeding need separate review.
How do I enforce a U.S. patent against foreign sellers on Amazon?
A seller's location outside the United States does not answer whether its conduct falls within U.S. patent law. Review the relevant sales and imports, the platform notice, and any court or agency proceeding separately.
Should I give sales numbers if a cease-and-desist letter asks for them?
A demand for sales information calls for a deliberate response. Identify whether it is a private request, a discovery request, a subpoena, or a contractual obligation before sending confidential business records.
What if I am a small seller and cannot afford a full patent fight?
Start by buying clarity about the patent, product, and deadline. A limited first review can help a small business compare a response, negotiated resolution, redesign, or defense without assuming that any option is inexpensive or certain to succeed.
What is a bad-faith patent demand letter, and what can targets do about it?
A mistaken or aggressive patent demand does not automatically establish bad faith. Separate verifiable errors from conclusions about motive, and have counsel evaluate the law that applies to any proposed response or claim.
Do I have to stop selling if I get a patent infringement letter?
A private patent demand is not itself an injunction. Whether continued sales are lawful and prudent depends on the patent claims, the product, any authorization, and any court or agency order already in force.
Should I ask the patent owner for a claim chart?
A claim chart is a structured explanation of how an asserted patent claim allegedly matches a product or process. Asking for one can clarify a utility-patent demand, but the request does not replace your own review or suspend a real deadline.
What if the patent owner refuses to send a claim chart and wants a meeting instead?
A refusal to provide a claim chart leaves an information gap; it does not decide infringement. Record what is missing, investigate the available patent and product evidence, and keep any formal deadline separate.
Can someone sue me or force a takedown based on a provisional patent application?
A provisional application is not an issued patent and does not by itself create a right to sue for patent infringement. Check the filing number, any related issued patents, and the particular platform process before responding to a demand.
Can I be sued for selling a product that is only "patent pending"?
Patent pending describes an application stage, not an issued patent right. A product label or application number should be checked against the actual application, its publication status, and any patent that has issued.
What if I get an infringement letter but I think the patent is expired?
Expiration and the dates of the accused activity are separate questions. An expired patent generally cannot cover new acts after its term, but a demand may concern infringement that allegedly occurred while the patent was in force.
What is the doctrine of equivalents, and how does it change infringement analysis?
The doctrine of equivalents can reach some differences between an accused product and a patent claim that defeat literal infringement. It is an element-by-element inquiry with legal limits, not a general rule that similar products infringe.
Should I call the other side's lawyer myself after a patent notice?
Before a direct call, decide what you need to learn and who should speak for the business. A prepared conversation or written request can help obtain the patent, product, and deadline information without improvising technical or settlement positions.
Mirum Sues Zenara Over Generic LIVMARLI (Maralixibat) Tablets.
On September 14, 2026, Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Satiogen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. sued Zenara Pharma Private Limited and Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01154. The complaint asserts eight patents it says are listed in the Orange Book for LIVMARLI, against Zenara's ANDA No. 221420 for maralixibat chloride oral tablets in 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 30 mg strengths.
Notable Holdings: September 2026 Cite Roundup
A monthly, cite-friendly roundup of decision and filing takeaways already published on this site in September 2026. Each item summarizes a published analysis and links to its full page.
ITC Institutes BoomCloud 360 Audio Investigation Against Apple, Samsung, and Google.
On September 15, 2026, the Commission ordered institution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1521, Certain Electronic Devices with Certain Audio Technologies, on BoomCloud 360 Inc.'s complaint. The September 16 notice names Apple, Samsung, and Google as respondents and puts three spatial-audio patents into the investigation. Institution is not a merits finding.
Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Obviousness Affirmance in Incept Catheter Appeal.
On September 17, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in In re Incept LLC, No. 2025-1900, vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's affirmance of a section 103 rejection of claim 1 of Application No. 16/886,099 and remanding under a corrected construction of "flow barrier."
Fleet Connect Sues Road Ready and DAVCO Over Trailer Telematics Patents.
On September 15, 2026, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC sued Road Ready, LLC and DAVCO Technology, LLC in the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 2:26-cv-13496, before Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. The complaint asserts ten patents against Road Ready and Fleetilla trailer-telematics hardware and software manufactured in part at DAVCO's Saline facility.
Carmet Seeks Declaratory Judgment That Shell Sale Exhausted JOLT EV Charger Patents.
On September 16, 2026, Black Oak Group Inc. d/b/a Carmet Scientific sued JOLT Charge, Inc. in the Northern District of California, No. 3:26-cv-10576. Carmet seeks a declaratory judgment that an allegedly authorized December 2025 Shell sale of Volta electric-vehicle charging equipment exhausted patent rights JOLT later asserted against Carmet's resale.
Federal Circuit Affirms $3.24 Million Fee Award Against Carnegie in Lab-Grown Diamond Suit.
On September 17, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of New York judgment holding Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D jointly and severally liable for $3,240,669.66 in attorney fees and expenses to Fenix Diamonds, and affirmed denial of pre-judgment interest on Fenix's cross-appeal.
ITC Will Review in Part ALJ Finding of Violation in Stryker Balloon Dilation Investigation.
On September 17, 2026, the Federal Register published the Commission's determination to review in part a final initial determination finding a section 337 violation in Investigation No. 337-TA-1449, Certain Balloon Dilation Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof. The target date is extended to November 13, 2026.
Equinix Seeks Declaratory Judgment Against NovaCloud on Five Ericsson-Origin Patents.
On September 16, 2026, Equinix, Inc. sued NovaCloud Licensing, LLC in the Northern District of California, No. 3:26-cv-10585, seeking declarations of noninfringement of U.S. Patents 8,401,028; 8,606,738; 7,869,447; 8,407,348; and 9,847,903. NovaCloud had identified those patents as relevant to Equinix Network Edge, Fabric, Fabric Router, Fabric Cloud Router, and SmartView.
Alnylam Sues Cipla Over Generic AMVUTTRA (Vutrisiran) Injection.
On September 16, 2026, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sued Cipla USA Inc. and Cipla Ltd. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01166. The Hatch-Waxman complaint asserts five Orange Book patents against Cipla's ANDA No. 221202 for generic AMVUTTRA (vutrisiran) injection, 25 mg/0.5 mL.
Novo Nordisk Sues Dr. Reddy's Over Generic Wegovy HD (Semaglutide).
On September 16, 2026, Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S sued Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. in the District of New Jersey, No. 1:26-cv-12228. The Hatch-Waxman complaint asserts U.S. Patents 11,318,191; 12,214,017; and 12,551,536 against DRL's ANDA for a generic version of Wegovy HD (semaglutide) injection.
Patent Marking: Why Section 287 Still Controls Pre-Suit Damages
Marking or actual notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a) can determine how far back damages reach. The VDPP decision shows why a patent owner relying on marking must address relevant licensees and reasonable efforts to secure their compliance.
Federal Circuit Rule 36: What a One-Word Affirmance Means
Rule 36 lets the Federal Circuit affirm without a written opinion. It ends that appeal for the appellees, but it does not create precedential reasoning you can cite like an opinion, and it does not decide every issue in a related district case.
Dual-Track ITC and District Court Patent Campaigns
Some patentees file a district-court damages case and an ITC section 337 complaint against the same products or supply chain. The district case seeks money and an injunction; the ITC case seeks to stop imports. Under 28 U.S.C. 1659, the damages case may pause while the ITC clock keeps moving.
Fintiv and Discretionary Denial of IPR Institution
When a district-court (or ITC) case is already running, the USPTO can still refuse to institute an IPR even if the petition looks institution-worthy on the merits. Apple v. Fintiv supplies the six-factor framework; later Director memoranda (including March 26, 2025 workload processes, October 17, 2025 Director institution, and March 11, 2026 manufacturing/small-business factors) reshape how those factors are weighed. This page is for litigators timing a petition or stay motion and for readers who hear "Fintiv denial" on a docket.
Willfulness and Enhanced Damages Under Section 284
Willfulness is the plaintiff's path to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284. After Halo, courts look for egregious infringement conduct under a discretionary standard, not the old Seagate two-part gate alone. This page is for litigators scanning a new complaint and for general readers who see "willful" in the prayer.
Harbor Island Ends Samsung PTAB Appeal by Agreement.
On September 15, 2026, the Federal Circuit dismissed Harbor Island Dynamic LLC's appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2024-01403 against Samsung Electronics. The parties agreed to dismiss under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Each side bears its own costs. The mandate issued the same day.
Tris Pharma Sues Granules Over Generic DYANAVEL XR Amphetamine Tablets.
On September 15, 2026, Tris Pharma, Inc. sued Granules Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01160, over ANDA No. 220284 for generic DYANAVEL XR (amphetamine) extended-release tablets. The complaint asserts newly issued U.S. Patent 12,734,132.
Rare Breed / ABC IP Sue Muffintop Tactical Over Forced-Reset Trigger Patents.
The Eastern District of Texas docket shows the ABC IP, RBTM, and Rare Breed case against Muffintop Tactical and Jason Ramsden was transferred from the Western District of Texas. The public copy cited here is the July 21, 2026 Western District complaint; technical claim summaries should be checked against the complaint and patent text before reuse.
Taasera Licensing Sues Zoho in East Texas.
On September 15, 2026, Taasera Licensing LLC sued Zoho Corporation Private Limited in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00824. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 7,673,137, 8,055,996, and 8,850,517 (at least claim 1 of each) against Zoho Forms, ManageEngine Log360, ManageEngine Endpoint offerings, and related components.
IoT Innovations Sues ABB in East Texas.
On September 15, 2026, IoT Innovations LLC sued ABB Limited in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00826. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 7,209,876 (claim 1), 7,593,428 (claim 14), 7,643,423 (claim 1), 9,008,055 (claim 1), and RE44,742 (claim 1) against ABB Ability Genix, Ability Edge gateways, free@home / Smart Device Manager offerings, and related systems.
DISH and Sling Sue Echelon Fitness Over Streaming Patents.
On September 15, 2026, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. sued Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC, Echelon Fitness, LLC, and Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01161. The complaint asserts five adaptive-bitrate (ABR) streaming patents (11,991,234; 8,868,772; 11,677,798; 11,470,138; and 10,469,554) against Echelon's connected-fitness streaming platform.
Carlsmed Sues DeGen Medical Over Personalized Spine Surgery Patents.
On September 15, 2026, Carlsmed, Inc. sued DeGen Medical, Inc. in the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, No. 4:26-cv-04064. The complaint asserts eight patents on patient-specific spinal implants and related planning methods, names DeGen's Solar PS and Impulse PS implants, and seeks an injunction and damages.
Flashcore Innovations Sues Samsung in East Texas.
On September 14, 2026, Flashcore Innovations LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00822. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 9,740,657 (at least claim 1) and 8,954,644 (at least claim 6) against Samsung high-bandwidth memory modules.
Clinical Genomics Sues Grail Over Galleri Multi-Cancer Detection Patents.
On September 11, 2026, Clinical Genomics Pty Ltd and related plaintiffs sued Grail, Inc. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01147. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 10,590,468 and 10,941,449 (at least claim 1 of each) on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) methylation methods and points those claims at Grail's Galleri multi-cancer detection test.
Federal Circuit Rule 36 Affirms PTAB Wins Against DoDots in Samsung and Apple IPRs.
On September 15, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment affirming PTAB final written decisions in DoDots Licensing Solutions IPRs involving Samsung, with Apple as an appellee. The Board proceedings covered U.S. Patents 8,020,083, 8,510,407, and 9,369,545 (network-content / application-media display technology).
Federal Circuit Rule 36 Affirms Denial of Rare Breed Triggers Preliminary Injunction.
On September 15, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment affirming the District of Wyoming's denial of a preliminary injunction in ABC IP LLC and Rare Breed Triggers Inc. v. Peak Tactical LLC. The February 13 district order identifies U.S. Patents 10,514,223; 11,724,003; 12,036,336; and 12,274,807.
Arbor Systems Keeps Filing East Texas Patent Suits Across IoT and Device Defendants.
Arbor Systems LLC continued a multi-defendant Eastern District of Texas wave through mid-September 2026. The Shiftall complaint (2:26-cv-00818) asserts U.S. Patents 10,046,229 and 11,496,870. The Teltonika complaint (2:26-cv-00821) asserts U.S. Patents 10,195,513 and 9,849,364. Both families are titled Smart device. Claim numbers appear in the attached charts rather than the complaint body.
Valtrus Innovations Files a Cluster of East Texas Datacenter Patent Suits.
Valtrus Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited sued Sabey Data Center Properties LLC in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 18, 2026. The case reached the Eastern District of Texas on September 11 as No. 2:26-cv-00807. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 6,868,682 and 6,718,277 (at least claim 1 of each) on datacenter energy and atmospheric control. Related EDTX filings include a companion suit against FifteenFortySeven Critical Systems Realty on overlapping cooling patents.
Cogent Insights Licensing Sues American Traction Solutions on an Induction-Generator Patent.
The September 14, 2026 Delaware complaint asserts U.S. Patent 7,330,016, titled "Induction generator power supply." Its Exhibit 2 maps claim 1 to ATS's locomotive propulsion system and alleges a role for regenerative braking.
Data Fence Sues CSC Holdings on a Call-Control Patent.
On September 14, 2026, Data Fence LLC sued CSC Holdings in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01150, asserting U.S. Patent 9,491,286. The claim chart maps claim 1 to Optimum Home Phone robocall and spam-call blocking.
May Patents Sues LEGO in East Texas.
On September 15, 2026, May Patents Ltd. sued LEGO A/S, LEGO System A/S, LEGO Holding A/S, LEGO Systems, Inc., and LEGO Brand Retail, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 4:26-cv-01276. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 11,192,002, 12,095,277, and 12,288,992 (at least claim 1 of each) against LEGO Smart Play products.
ITC Will Not Review Dolby Intervenor Status in InterDigital's TCL and Hisense Investigation.
On September 14, 2026, the Federal Register published the Commission's determination not to review an ALJ order granting Dolby intervenor status (not as a respondent) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1495. The order concerns patents 11,399,168 and 9,654,751 within a larger InterDigital video-device patent set.
Apple Asks the Supreme Court to Narrow the ITC Domestic-Industry Economic Prong.
Apple Inc. petitioned for a writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Supreme Court No. 26-316 (filed September 3, 2026; docketed September 10). The petition challenges how section 1337(a)(3)(B) treats R&D spending as "labor or capital" and raises a Chenery issue on agency-rationale affirmance, against the Masimo Apple Watch ITC backdrop.
Federal Circuit Restores TexasLDPC's Suit Against Broadcom on Exclusive-License Standing.
On September 14, 2026, a precedential Federal Circuit panel reversed a Delaware dismissal. It held that TexasLDPC's exclusive license from Texas A&M conveyed all substantial rights, that the license had not terminated, and that A&M was not a necessary Rule 19 party.
Federal Circuit Vacates NCS Multistage's WDTX Jury Wins on Oilfield Float-Tool Patent.
On September 14, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated infringement, no-invalidity, and damages judgments against Nine Energy on U.S. Patent 10,465,445 and remanded for a new trial. A companion nonprecedential appeal against TCO affirmed contributory infringement but vacated the no-invalidity judgment.
Vicor Power Campaign Hub: Texas '734 Suits and ITC Investigation 337-TA-1526
Vicor filed three Texas district suits on U.S. Patent 10,903,734 on September 8, 2026, and an ITC complaint on September 9, received as DN 3936. On October 9 the Commission ordered Investigation No. 337-TA-1526 instituted on claims of the '734 patent against 20 respondents. The institution notice was published on October 14, 2026, at 91 Fed. Reg. 65254, which instituted the investigation under 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1).
BenedorTSE Sues Amazon.com Services in Middle District of Tennessee.
On September 11, 2026, BenedorTSE, LLC sued Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. in the Middle District of Tennessee, No. 3:26-cv-01303. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 9,400,979 (at least claims 13 and 19) and 8,463,713 (at least claim 13) against the Amazon Shopping app and stored-payment checkout flows.
Viken Detection Sues Videray on a Newly Issued X-Ray Chopper-Wheel Patent.
On September 11, 2026, Viken Detection Corporation sued Videray Technologies Inc. in the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-14192-PBS (Judge Patti B. Saris). The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 12,718,966 (at least Claim 29) against Videray's PX1, PX Lite, and PX Ultra handheld X-ray scanners, and alleges willful infringement.
Federal Circuit Affirms Globus Medical's Noninfringement Win on Spinal-Implant Patents.
On September 11, 2026, a precedential Federal Circuit panel affirmed an Eastern District of Pennsylvania judgment for Globus Medical. The court backed a limiting reading of "universal" in two patents and left a jury noninfringement finding on a third patent's "cooperating" limitation.
Federal Circuit Affirms Amazon's Noninfringement Judgment on AlterWAN's WAN QoS Patent.
On September 11, 2026, a nonprecedential Federal Circuit majority affirmed a Delaware stipulated noninfringement judgment for Amazon and AWS. The fight turned on claim constructions of "cooperating service provider" and "non-blocking bandwidth" in U.S. Patent 8,595,478. Judge Subramanian dissented.
TechSys Insights Sues Verizon Over Fiber and Network Patents.
On September 8, 2026, TechSys Insights LLC sued Verizon Communications and nine Verizon units in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:26-cv-00798. The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 8,989,591, 9,014,558, and 9,020,350 against Verizon fiber and related network systems.
Stratopatent Files Parallel East Texas Suits Against Shopify Inc. and Wipro.
On September 9, 2026, Stratopatent LLC filed separate Eastern District of Texas patent suits against Shopify Inc. and against Wipro Limited and Wipro Inc. The claim discussion below covers the Shopify complaint; the Wipro case is listed as related campaign context.
Malikie Sues Antpool and ViaBTC Over Bitcoin Crypto Patents.
On September 9, 2026, Malikie Innovations and Key Patent Innovations filed patent suits in the Midland-Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas against bitcoin mining-pool operators Antpool and ViaBTC. The Antpool complaint asserts four Certicom and BlackBerry-origin patents. The ViaBTC complaint asserts those four plus a fifth, alleges that three of the five expired before suit, and seeks an injunction only on the two it says remain in force.
Near Field Electronics Files a Nine-Defendant Retail Wave Over NFC Reader Patents.
Near Field Electronics filed an Eastern District of Texas retail NFC wave on September 8, 2026. The detailed discussion below covers the Yankee Candle complaint, including claim 2 of U.S. Patent 7,373,531 and an alleged March 19, 2026 expiration date for that patent.
GameChange Sues Nextpower Over a Solar-Tracker Stow Patent.
Delaware complaint filed September 9, 2026. GameChange Solar Corp. asserts U.S. Patent 12,449,161 against Nextpower's NX Horizon with Hail Pro tracker, pointing at high-angle hail stow, and asks for an injunction and damages.
Federal Circuit Affirms Fee Award Against Viavi in a 3D-Sensing Filter Fight.
Nonprecedential opinion on September 8, 2026. The court upheld a Northern District of California finding that parts of Viavi's case against Platinum Optics were exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285.
ITC Will Review Part of Klein Tools' Win Against Milwaukee.
Federal Register notice published September 9, 2026. The ALJ found a section 337 violation on one safety-helmet patent. The Commission is reviewing parts of that decision and asking for briefs on remedy and the public interest.
BMS and Ono Sue Amgen Over a Proposed Opdivo (Nivolumab) Biosimilar.
On September 8, 2026, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C., and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. sued Amgen Inc. in the District of Delaware, No. 1:26-cv-01134. A redacted complaint identifies Amgen's proposed nivolumab biosimilar of Opdivo and asserts seven patents spanning PD-1 antibodies and cancer-treatment methods.
FAQ Hub: Practical Guides for Patent Work
Practical guides to patent notices, lawsuits, Patent Office challenges, ITC proceedings, litigation costs, and related questions. These guides are general commentary, not legal advice, and do not create an attorney-client relationship.
FAQ: Drafting Patent Applications from Recent Federal Circuit Opinions
Practical lessons from recent Federal Circuit opinions. Each answer has three parts: what the court held, what you should do when you draft, and a simple bad-vs-better example. This is commentary, not legal advice.
FAQ: What to Ask Inventors Before You Draft
Simple interview questions that help you gather the facts recent Federal Circuit cases show you need. Use the core list every time. Add the extra modules when they fit the technology.
FAQ: Litigation Practice from Recent Cases on This Board
Practical answers about courtroom and ITC timing issues from recent public cases on this site. Each answer says what happened, then what it means in practice. This is commentary, not legal advice.
FAQ: You've Been Sued for Patent Infringement
First steps, typical district-court timelines, and the questions new defendants and in-house counsel ask most often. This is general commentary for readers with little patent-litigation experience, not legal advice, and it does not promise any result.
I received a notice letter alleging I am infringing a patent. What are my next steps?
Do not ignore the letter. Preserve it, calendar any response date it states, map the patents and accused products, and get patent counsel involved before you reply or redesign in a hurry. This page is general commentary, not legal advice for your facts.
I just got sued for patent infringement in federal court. What happens next?
Calendar the response deadline, hire patent counsel for that court, issue a litigation hold, and map the patents and accused products before you talk to the other side. The longer sued FAQ on this site covers the deep Q&A; this page is the short "what happens next" path.
Should I challenge the patent at the PTAB (IPR/PGR)?
Compare the proposed grounds, filing deadlines, institution risks, cost, and estoppel before choosing a Patent Office challenge.
My customer got a patent notice about my product. What should I do?
When a customer receives a patent notice about your product, obtain the notice and the governing contracts promptly. Coordinate the factual review while counsel determines who has any duty to defend, indemnify, or notify another party.
I was named in an ITC patent investigation. How is that different from district court?
A section 337 investigation targets unfair imports and exclusion-style remedies on a compressed clock. It is not a damages courtroom, response duties under 19 CFR 210.13 are real, and default under 1337(g) can produce an order limited to a nonparticipating respondent.
Do I have to respond to a patent notice letter?
A private patent notice does not itself start the federal deadline for answering a complaint. Still, record the requested date, preserve the letter, and investigate whether a response or another action is appropriate.
How long do I have before the patent owner can sue me?
A patent owner can often sue as soon as it believes it has a good-faith infringement claim, subject to ownership, standing, and pleading rules. There is no universal grace period after a notice letter, though marking and damages rules can still affect how far back money can reach.
What is a Paragraph IV notice letter in a drug case?
In Hatch-Waxman practice, a Paragraph IV certification tells the brand that the ANDA applicant seeks approval before patent expiry on the theory that listed patents are invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. The notice letter triggers a short window in which the brand often sues and may start a 30-month stay of FDA approval.
Can ignoring a notice letter lead to willful infringement?
Receiving a patent notice can matter to knowledge, but it does not establish willful infringement or make enhanced damages automatic. Willfulness and the court's decision whether to increase damages are separate questions.
Should I get a formal opinion of counsel?
A legal opinion can organize a reasoned analysis of infringement, validity, or enforceability. Whether to obtain one depends on the decision you need to make; patent law does not impose a general requirement to buy an opinion after a notice.
What is a design-around, and when does it help?
A design-around changes a product or process to avoid the asserted patent claims. Start with the relevant claim limitations and verify the revised product, including any equivalents theory, before assuming that a change removes infringement risk.
When does an indemnification clause cover a patent claim?
Start with the signed contract and the law that governs it. A supplier promise to cover patent claims may have limits on covered products, notice, defense costs, and settlement authority.
Can I file a declaratory judgment action instead of waiting to be sued?
A declaratory-judgment action can ask a court to resolve a real patent dispute before the patent owner sues. A concrete controversy, jurisdiction, venue, and the effect on other challenges all need attention.
What is an IPR, and how is it different from district court?
Inter partes review challenges patent claims at the Patent Office using patents or printed publications. It addresses a narrower set of issues than an infringement lawsuit.
What is reexamination, and when would I use it instead of IPR?
Ex parte reexamination asks the Patent Office to reconsider patent claims using patents or printed publications. Compare its limited requester participation with the deadlines and estoppel associated with IPR.
Can I stay the district court case if I file at the PTAB?
An IPR petition does not automatically pause an existing infringement lawsuit. The judge generally decides whether a stay would simplify the case without unfair prejudice.
What happens if the patent owner also files at the ITC?
An ITC complaint beside your district case adds a compressed import-remedy track. Calendar the 19 CFR 210.13 response deadline, consider a timely 28 U.S.C. 1659 stay, and coordinate positions across forums.
How do I pick venue, or fight the venue the plaintiff chose?
Patent venue asks whether the infringement action belongs in the chosen district. A request to transfer an otherwise proper case for convenience is a separate question.
What is claim construction, and why does it matter so early?
Claim construction determines the meaning of disputed patent language. That meaning supplies the framework for comparing the claims with accused products and prior art.
What discovery should I expect in a patent case?
Discovery gathers evidence about the claims, defenses, and damages. Rule 26 limits it to relevant, nonprivileged material that is proportional to the needs of the case.
What is an injunction, and what must a patent owner show to get one?
An injunction directs a party to do or stop specified conduct. A finding of patent infringement does not automatically produce a permanent injunction, and early relief has its own requirements.
How are patent damages usually calculated?
Patent damages compensate for proven infringement. Section 284 provides a reasonable-royalty floor; lost profits require evidence of the profits the owner would have earned without the infringement.
What is enhanced damages, and how do I reduce that risk?
Enhanced damages are a discretionary increase in compensatory patent damages, up to three times under section 284. An accusation of willfulness is not itself an award.
Should I settle early, and what does a typical patent license look like?
Early settlement is a business decision informed by the patent claims, available defenses, expected expense, and the agreement's scope. There is no standard patent license that fits every dispute.
What if I am only a customer or reseller, not the manufacturer?
Using or selling a product can create patent exposure even when someone else made it. Supplier contracts, an authorized sale, and the precise accusation should be examined separately.
What if the patent looks invalid from old publications or products?
Older technology may matter, but dates, public availability, and the precise claim limitations must be proved. District-court defenses and Patent Office proceedings do not accept exactly the same grounds.
What is inequitable conduct, and when does it come up?
Inequitable conduct is a defense seeking to prevent enforcement because of material misconduct before the Patent Office coupled with specific intent to deceive. An omitted reference alone does not establish it.
How do ANDA / Hatch-Waxman timelines and the 30-month stay work?
A qualifying, timely patent suit after Paragraph IV notice can delay final FDA approval of an abbreviated new drug application. The statutory approval stay is not a court injunction or a decision on infringement.
What is a consent judgment, and when is it used?
A consent judgment is an order entered by the court on agreed terms. It should identify precisely what is resolved and what, if anything, the parties must do afterward.
What should in-house counsel put in a litigation hold after a patent notice?
A litigation hold is a preservation process for information relevant to anticipated or pending litigation. Identify the people, systems, and product versions involved, then make sure preservation instructions are implemented.
When should I send a notice letter instead of filing suit right away?
A notice letter may open a licensing discussion or provide relevant infringement notice. Decide what the letter should accomplish and evaluate its jurisdictional and damages consequences before sending it.
What should a good notice letter include?
A useful patent notice identifies the patent, the activity being challenged, and the requested response. It should distinguish supported facts from allegations and make the proposed next step clear.
How do I choose between district court and the ITC?
Choose district court when you need damages or an Article III injunction. Choose the ITC when you need import leverage on a fast statutory clock and can meet domestic industry. Many owners use both.
Can I sue in both district court and the ITC at the same time?
Yes. Owners often run district damages cases beside ITC section 337 complaints. Expect different remedies, a possible mandatory district stay under 28 U.S.C. 1659, and naming strategy driven by Kyocera.
How do I pick the best venue for a patent case?
Start with districts permitted by the patent venue statute. Then assess whether the chosen district can keep and manage the case, including any convenience-transfer request.
Which claims should I assert first?
Choose claims that the available evidence can support against identified products. Record the claim-by-claim theory and check the court's disclosure and amendment rules before treating other claims as later fallbacks.
Do I need to mark my products to get pre-suit damages?
For patented articles subject to section 287(a), marking and actual notice can determine the start of recoverable damages. Sales by authorized licensees belong in that analysis even when the patent owner sells no product itself.
What evidence do I need before filing a complaint?
Investigate the patent, ownership, accused activity, and each proposed infringement theory before filing. Rule 11 requires a reasonable inquiry; discovery is not a substitute for a supported starting position.
What is a preliminary injunction, and what must the applicant show?
A preliminary injunction seeks relief before final judgment. It requires a supported showing of likely success, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and the public interest.
How do I plead willfulness without overreaching?
Support a willfulness allegation with the particular facts and timing you can responsibly allege. Keep that pleading question separate from whether the judge should later enhance damages.
What happens if the defendant files an IPR against my patent?
An IPR petition begins a request for Patent Office review; it is not a finding that the patent is invalid. Review the asserted grounds, service history, response deadlines, and the effect on any court case.
How does Fintiv discretionary denial affect my district court case?
The Director decides whether to begin an IPR or PGR under current USPTO practice. Discretionary denial and a district-court stay are separate decisions; neither institution outcome determines infringement or damages.
Should I offer a license before suing?
A licensing proposal can test whether a business resolution is possible, but it should follow an assessment of the patent position, notice consequences, and possible litigation response.
How do damages, royalties, and lost profits usually work?
Damages should match the loss attributable to infringement. A patent owner should distinguish a reasonable-royalty theory from a lost-profits theory and assemble evidence for the chosen measure.
What is an exclusion order at the ITC?
An exclusion order directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop covered infringing articles at the border. A limited exclusion order (LEO) targets articles of named respondents. A general exclusion order (GEO) can reach infringing articles of non-respondents when 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2) is satisfied.
How do I handle a multi-defendant campaign?
Multiple defendants create separate questions about joinder, venue, product proof, schedules, and settlement scope. A shared patent does not by itself justify putting every accused company into one action.
What if the accused product changed after my notice letter?
A redesigned product needs its own comparison with the asserted claims. Keep the original and revised versions separate, along with the dates and sales associated with each.
How do Orange Book listing and Hatch-Waxman suits work for brand owners?
Orange Book patent submissions and Hatch-Waxman litigation are related but distinct tasks. List eligible patents accurately, evaluate each Paragraph IV notice, and calculate the applicable litigation and FDA dates.
When should I amend infringement contentions?
Act promptly when new evidence or claim construction changes an infringement theory. Whether amendment is allowed depends on the court's patent rules and scheduling order.
What settlement structures are common (lump sum, running royalty, covenant not to sue)?
A patent settlement can combine payment, permission for future activity, release of past claims, and dismissal. The right structure is the one whose scope and enforcement terms match the agreement reached.
What is the typical timeline of a patent case from complaint to trial?
There is no single nationwide complaint-to-trial timetable for patent cases. Use the assigned court's scheduling order and patent rules to identify milestones, and revisit the calendar when the court changes it.
What is a Markman / claim construction hearing?
A Markman hearing is a proceeding about the meaning of disputed patent claims. The judge decides construction, using the patent record and any properly considered evidence.
What is summary judgment in a patent case?
Summary judgment resolves a claim or issue when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A strong argument alone is not that showing.
What is a consent decree vs. a dismissal?
A dismissal ends litigation as specified in the dismissal papers. A consent decree is an agreed court order that may impose continuing obligations. A private settlement is a separate agreement whose enforcement must also be considered.
How does appeal to the Federal Circuit work?
The Federal Circuit reviews the categories of patent and agency decisions assigned to it by statute. Identify the appealable decision, the proper route, and the filing deadline before planning the merits brief.
What is Rule 36 at the Federal Circuit?
Federal Circuit Rule 36 permits an affirmance without an opinion when the court finds one of the listed conditions and concludes that an opinion would have no precedential value.
What if the patent owner does not make a product?
A patent owner does not have to manufacture a product to bring an infringement action. The merits and remedies depend on the patent rights, accused conduct, evidence, and applicable legal tests.
How do NDAs and common-interest privilege work when sharing prior art with co-defendants?
An NDA and the common-interest doctrine do different work. A confidentiality agreement does not automatically turn a public reference or business discussion into a privileged legal communication.
trinamiX Opens a Dual-Track Face ID Fight Against Apple.
A September 3, 2026 Midland complaint asserts seven optical skin/material-detection patents. A September 9 Federal Register notice records trinamiX's September 4 ITC complaint against Apple under DN 3934.
AJ Marketing Sues Juul on a 2014 Inhalation-Device Patent. It Wants Royalties, Not a Ban.
One patent, one damages-focused count. U.S. Patent 8,851,068 is asserted against Juul 1 and Juul2. The prayer asks for reasonable and ongoing royalties, enhanced damages, and fees. It does not ask for an injunction.
ITC 337-TA-1443 Ends: Longitude/Marlin Settlement with TSMC Terminates the Probe.
The Commission will not review the ALJ's August 5 ID. Because the remaining respondents were pleaded as TSMC customers, the investigation is over in full. Apple had already settled out in June.
Netlist v. Micron: Three PTAB Appeals Affirm Obviousness of Claims in Five Memory Patents.
A precedential opinion and two companions, issued the same day, affirm obviousness of Netlist DIMM-buffer, on-module voltage, and 3DS-package claims. Samsung petitioned, then settled. Micron stayed in.
BTF IP Sues Eleven Labs on a Multi-Voice TTS Patent.
One patent, one count. The complaint maps Eleven Labs' voice platform, including Studio, Voice Library, and dubbing, onto claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,521,593. Willfulness is alleged from a July 2026 notice.
Takeda Sues Alvotech on Entyvio, Alleging Restricted Access to the aBLA.
Takeda asserts six method patents against proposed IV vedolizumab biosimilar AVT16. It alleges that Alvotech conditioned the aBLA password on additional confidentiality terms and did not provide the application and manufacturing information.
VDPP v. Volkswagen: Licensee-Marking Allegations Failed on This Record.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a suit on an expired patent where VDPP failed to plead licensee marking or reasonable efforts to secure it. Settlement licenses were not exempt from section 287(a).
Constellation v. LG: Optimization Claims Are Abstract. Specific Constellations Are Not.
A modified precedential opinion vacates eligibility of result-oriented optimization claims and affirms claims reciting specific non-uniform constellations. Infringement and the $6.75 per-television royalty survive.
Exelixis v. MSN: Chemical Name Plus Crystalline Structure Can Support a Salt Genus
Written description for crystalline cabozantinib (L)-malate salts is affirmed. The appeal on claim 3 of the '349 patent is dismissed as moot, and the no-inherency judgment on that claim is vacated.
Incuvate Asserts Five Related Aspiration-Monitoring Patents Against Penumbra.
The August 19 complaint accuses the THUNDERBOLT platform and related components. The five asserted patents trace to a 2014 provisional application; the newest issued in February 2026.
Dynamic Drinkware Survives the AIA: Dental Monitoring Vacates a Penumbra-Based IPR
A published application is prior art as of its provisional filing date only if that provisional supplies section 112(a) written description support for at least one published claim of the reference. The Board's ministerial Penumbra test does not.
Netlist Opens a Dual-Track Fight with Micron on DDR5 Modules.
August 2026 complaints put Netlist and Micron in California and Delaware, alongside ITC Docket No. 3930. On September 22, 2026, the Commission ordered institution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1523. The notice was issued September 23 and published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2026, at 91 FR 60980.
BoomCloud 360, Apple, and a Three-Forum Audio Fight. Midland Asserts One Trio, the DJ Another.
Apple filed first in the Southern District of California on one trio of patents. BoomCloud 360 followed in Midland against Apple and Google, then at the ITC. The Commission has now instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1521 on the Midland patent set. Google, Samsung, and Motorola have each filed declaratory-judgment actions on the Apple DJ trio. The '527 DJ patent and the '078 Midland/ITC patent share a Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain title. They are different numbers.
Navitas Sues Renesas in Marshall on Four GaN Patents. Venue Rests on the Alien Statute.
Navitas Semiconductor Ireland sued Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas on four gallium-nitride patents. Renesas is a Tokyo corporation; venue is pleaded under section 1391(c)(3).
Ex parte Chowdhury Reverses an Improper Markush Rejection. The Office Then Designated It Informative.
A February 5, 2026 reversal, designated informative on August 25, explains that a Markush grouping is proper when it recites members of a subgenus and the specification describes those members as performing similar functions in the context of the invention. Structural divergence is not fatal if the species are substitutable for that function.
T-Mobile v. KAIFI Is a Settlement Fight. The Federal Circuit Sent It to the Fifth Circuit.
Whether an asserted claim "survives" an ex parte reexamination is a Texas-law contract question. It does not confer Federal Circuit jurisdiction, so the appeal is transferred.
AML IP v. Bath & Body Works: Improper Venue Does Not Bar a Simultaneous Section 101 Dismissal.
Applying Fifth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit upheld a single order deciding concurrently briefed venue and section 101 motions. It found no abuse of discretion on this record and refused to opine on preclusion.