This FAQ collects drafting takeaways from recent Federal Circuit opinions already analyzed here. Prefer claim and specification lessons. Litigation-procedure points appear only when they change how you write claims, specs, or license templates. Search the headings by issue (section 101, written description, process ranges, marking).

Q1. After Constellation Designs v. LG, how should I claim an "optimized" structure?

Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. modified Aug. 31, 2026) (precedential), vacated eligibility of optimization claims that recited a geometrically spaced constellation "optimized for capacity using parallel decode capacity" without locking the claim to a concrete process or specific structure. It affirmed claims that recited specific non-uniform constellations, including overlapping point locations.

Drafting takeaway: avoid result-oriented "optimize X for Y" as the claim's only inventive concept. Prefer claims that recite the specific output structure (the particular constellation, point set, or arrangement) or a meaningful process or constraint that produces it. Keep a dependent claim ladder from broader method or system claims down to the concrete implementation you actually invented. See Constellation Designs v. LG on this site.

Q2. After Exelixis v. MSN, is naming a crystalline salt enough written description for a genus?

Exelixis, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2025-1236 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026) (precedential), affirmed written description for crystalline cabozantinib (L)-malate genus claims where the specification disclosed the chemical name and formula plus that the structure is crystalline, and the claims were no broader than that disclosure. The court treated those as structural features common to the genus under the Ariad / GSK framework, distinguished functionally vast genus cases like AbbVie, and noted the district court's finding of a limited maximum polymorph set.

Drafting takeaway: for crystalline-salt or similar chemical genus claims without performance properties, expressly disclose chemical name, formula, and crystalline character (and processes of making, which help but were not independently dispositive there). Do not assume this blesses large functionally defined genus claims. Align claim breadth with the shared structure the specification actually identifies. See Exelixis v. MSN on this site.

Q3. After Biofer v. Vifor, how should I write process ranges like pH?

Biofer S.p.A. v. Vifor (International) AG, No. 2025-1005 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2026) (nonprecedential), affirmed noninfringement where "pH between 7.0 and 9.0" was construed to mean the pH is maintained throughout the oxidation step, not merely that pH somewhere in the process falls in that range.

Drafting takeaway: if you mean a parameter must stay inside a range for the whole step, say so (for example, "maintaining a pH of X to Y throughout [step]"). If you mean only initial adjustment, an endpoint, or any moment in the step, say that expressly. Define in the specification whether range language is continuous, average, setpoint, or instantaneous. Nonprecedential: cite carefully; still a clear drafting lesson.

Q4. After Netlist v. Micron, what helps when drafting memory or module claims against JEDEC-style art?

The Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. trilogy (Fed. Cir. Sept. 2, 2026), including precedential No. 2024-1707, affirmed PTAB obviousness of DIMM-buffer, on-module voltage, and 3DS/TSV claims over combinations including Ellsberry/Halbert, Harris/FBDIMM, and Kim/Rajan-type art. Disputes often turned on whether the prior art taught timing "in accordance with a latency parameter," enabling a data path through a buffer, edge-connector power, or TSV load arrangements.

Drafting takeaway: recite the structural location of the inventive control (which component uses the latency parameter to enable the path), not only functional outcomes that JEDEC-compatible modules already imply. If load or interconnect length matters, say whether different lengths are required or whether zero difference is allowed. Build specification support for why a skilled artisan would not combine standard module practices the way the Board did. See Netlist v. Micron (CAFC) on this site.

Q5. After Dental Monitoring v. Align, what should I check for provisional dating?

Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., No. 2025-1752 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2026) (precedential), holds that a published application is prior art as of its provisional only if the provisional supplies section 112(a) support for at least one published claim of the reference (Dynamic Drinkware logic under the AIA).

Drafting and diligence takeaway: when citing a published application back to a provisional, confirm the provisional supports at least one published claim, not merely subject matter somewhere in the provisional. When filing your own chain, ensure each provisional actually supports the claims you will publish or assert if you need that date. See Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align on this site.

Q6. Does VDPP v. Volkswagen change how I draft applications?

VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2024-2226 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2026) (precedential), is primarily a litigation and licensing case: a non-practicing owner seeking pre-suit damages must plead that its licensees complied with 35 U.S.C. 287(a); settlement licenses count; leave to amend was futile on that record.

Portfolio takeaway: application drafting itself rarely fixes marking, but license templates should. Prefer marking covenants and audit rights if pre-suit damages may matter later. Avoid express no-obligation-to-mark clauses in settlement licenses without understanding the damages tradeoff. See VDPP v. Volkswagen on this site.

Q7. What should I not do with this FAQ?

Do not treat nonprecedential dispositions as binding nationwide rules. Do not invent claim language the opinion did not address. Do not convert litigation outcomes into guaranteed prosecution recipes. When in doubt, stick to the opinion's disposition and keep the takeaway probabilistic.

How this page will grow

When a new Federal Circuit opinion teaches a claim or specification lesson, a short Q&A slip can be added here: one drafter question, caption and date, holding in a few sentences from the opinion only, drafting takeaway, and sources. Pure venue or settlement-jurisdiction opinions usually stay off this FAQ unless they change how you draft claims or specs.