Appellate Impacts
Recent federal appellate opinions with significant business impact. Covering securities, antitrust, labor & employment, intellectual property, arbitration, class actions, and bankruptcy. Court badges link to the full opinion on CourtListener.
Nos. 23-1882, 23-1883
Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on inequitable conduct in obtaining patents and on a Walker Process fraud claim alleging attempted monopolization through enforcement of fraudulently obtained patents.
The Federal Circuit vacated summary judgment on both inequitable conduct (which had been granted for Global Tubing) and Walker Process fraud (which had been granted for Tenaris), finding genuine disputes of material fact on both issues. The case involves allegations that Tenaris failed to disclose prior CYMAX technology documents to the PTO when obtaining coiled tubing patents. The court remanded for trial on both claims.
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers benefit from the court's willingness to let Walker Process fraud claims (seeking antitrust liability for enforcing fraudulently obtained patents) proceed to trial, providing a powerful defensive tool against abusive patent enforcement.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face heightened litigation risk as both inequitable conduct and Walker Process antitrust fraud claims can survive summary judgment where there are factual disputes about disclosure of prior art during prosecution.
No. 24-2118
Whether the district court properly denied JMOL of obviousness and a new trial on damages for a patent covering pre-lit artificial trees with integrated electrical connections.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Polygroup's JMOL of obviousness and motion for new trial on damages for Willis's pre-lit artificial tree patent. The court upheld the jury's findings on nonobviousness and the damages award, maintaining Willis's patent protection for its integrated trunk connector technology.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders in consumer product innovation benefit from the court's deference to jury findings on nonobviousness, supporting enforcement of patents covering practical mechanical improvements.
Risk for Business
Competitors in consumer products face continued enforcement risk for patents covering incremental mechanical improvements, with limited ability to overturn jury verdicts on obviousness grounds.
No. 24-1864
Whether the PTO Director's instructions to the Board governing discretionary denials of inter partes review institution constitute legislative rules requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § 553.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the PTO Director's instructions governing Board discretionary IPR non-institution decisions are general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under § 553(b). The court emphasized that Congress provided no legal right to IPR institution, the Director retains ultimate authority over institution decisions, and the instructions do not bind the Director.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders benefit from the PTO's preserved flexibility to decline IPR petitions without being constrained by formal rulemaking processes, helping protect patents from certain administrative challenges.
Risk for Business
Companies relying on IPR as a cost-effective tool to challenge patents face continued risk of discretionary non-institution without the procedural protections of notice-and-comment rulemaking, reducing predictability of access to the IPR system.
No. 24-1541
Whether the Board's claim construction of encryption information terms in a patent covering streaming partly encrypted media content was correct, and whether the resulting obviousness determination should be upheld.
The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's claim construction in an IPR involving DivX's patent on streaming partly encrypted media content, vacated the Board's decision upholding the patent, and remanded for further proceedings. The case arose from DivX's infringement suit against Netflix, and the corrected construction could expose the patent to prior art challenges.
Favorable to Business
Streaming companies like Netflix benefit from the Federal Circuit's willingness to correct Board claim constructions that improperly shield patents from prior art, potentially invalidating patents asserted against major platforms.
Risk for Business
Patent holders in digital media encryption face risk that favorable Board decisions may be reversed on claim construction, requiring re-evaluation of patent validity under corrected claim scope.
No. 24-1577
Whether a patent holder's conditioning of patent licenses on customers' exclusive purchase of the patent holder's unpatented products constitutes unlawful tying under the Sherman Act, even where the tied products allegedly lack substantial non-infringing uses.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding Ingevity liable for unlawful tying under the Sherman Act. Ingevity conditioned licenses to its fuel vapor canister patent on customers' agreements to exclusively purchase Ingevity's unpatented carbon honeycomb products. The court upheld the jury's finding that the honeycombs had substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., air-intake systems outside the patent scope), defeating Ingevity's 'nonstaple goods' defense.
Favorable to Business
Competitors like BASF benefit from clarity that patent holders cannot leverage patents to foreclose competition in adjacent unpatented product markets, preserving competitive access to customers.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face significant antitrust liability risk if they condition patent licenses on exclusive purchases of unpatented products, even where the patent and products are commercially related. Companies must carefully structure licensing to avoid tying claims.
Nos. 24-1669, 24-1744
Whether patents claiming methods and systems for a server to deliver content tailored to a wireless device's screen size or capabilities are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held that GoTV's patents claiming server-based content delivery tailored to wireless device capabilities are ineligible for patenting under § 101. The court found the claims directed to the abstract idea of tailoring content to device specifications. This eliminated GoTV's $2.5 million jury verdict against Netflix.
Favorable to Business
Technology companies like Netflix gain protection against patent assertions covering conventional server-side content adaptation, reducing exposure to infringement claims based on abstract software concepts.
Risk for Business
Patent holders in digital media and content delivery face increased vulnerability to § 101 challenges. The decision narrows enforceable patent scope for adaptive streaming and content-tailoring technologies.
No. 25-127
Whether the International Trade Commission's practice of automatically designating all questionnaire responses as confidential in countervailing duty and antidumping investigations is compatible with the governing statute and whether section 1516a abrogates the common law right of access to judicial records.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade's holding that the ITC's blanket practice of automatically designating all questionnaire responses as confidential is incompatible with the governing trade statute. The court also held that 19 U.S.C. § 1516a does not abrogate the common law right of access to judicial proceedings. The decision forces the ITC to evaluate confidentiality designations on an individualized basis.
Favorable to Business
Importers, domestic producers, and the public benefit from increased transparency in trade remedy proceedings, as the ITC can no longer blanket-designate all questionnaire responses as confidential without statutory basis.
Risk for Business
Companies submitting commercially sensitive data in ITC investigations face increased risk of public disclosure, as the ITC must now evaluate confidentiality on a case-by-case basis rather than automatically protecting all submissions.
No. 24-1520
Whether claims directed to web conferencing systems with time-shifting capabilities for asynchronous viewing of data streams are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement complaint against Google, finding the asserted web conferencing patent claims ineligible under § 101. The claims covered time-shifting capabilities enabling participants to view sessions in real-time, delayed, or at different playback rates while maintaining audio quality.
Favorable to Business
Technology companies benefit from continued narrowing of patent-eligible subject matter for software-based conferencing and streaming features, reducing litigation exposure from patent assertion entities.
Risk for Business
Patent owners holding web conferencing and streaming technology patents face heightened § 101 invalidity risk, potentially undermining significant patent portfolios in the collaboration technology space.
Nos. 23-2226, 23-2234
Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony on induced patent infringement and erred in granting JMOL to the defendant on claims of induced infringement of surgical device patents.
The Federal Circuit reversed JMOL for DePuy and remanded for a new trial, finding the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from two of Barry's experts on induced patent infringement of surgical technique patents. The case involves spinal surgery derotation tools and the 'handle means' claim limitation. The reversal reopens significant damages exposure for DePuy.
Favorable to Business
Individual inventors and smaller patent holders benefit from the court's enforcement of liberal expert testimony standards, ensuring their infringement theories can reach a jury.
Risk for Business
Medical device manufacturers like DePuy face renewed litigation risk and potential damages exposure when appellate courts reverse expert exclusion rulings, requiring retrials on induced infringement claims.
Nos. 23-2043, 23-2233, 23-2326
Whether the district court properly found infringement of child car seat patents under the doctrine of equivalents and whether the permanent injunction was properly issued.
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment finding Evenflo's car seats infringe Wonderland's patents, and vacated portions of a permanent injunction. The court addressed the scope of doctrine of equivalents infringement for child safety seat design patents and the propriety of injunctive relief covering both asserted patents when only one was the basis for the injunction motion.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders in consumer safety products benefit from affirmation of doctrine of equivalents infringement findings, strengthening enforcement against competitors who design around literal claim scope.
Risk for Business
Consumer product manufacturers face ongoing risk of broad injunctive relief based on doctrine of equivalents findings, requiring careful product design to avoid equivalent structures even when avoiding literal infringement.
No. 24-1407
Whether common law trademark rights acquired through an asset purchase agreement executed after opposition proceedings were filed can establish priority for cancellation of a registered mark, and whether the Board properly dismissed an opposition where the opposer submitted no evidence at trial.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's cancellation of Game Plan's registered mark containing 'I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE' and dismissed Game Plan's opposition to UNIP's marks. UNIP acquired common law priority rights through a valid asset purchase agreement that transferred the mark along with associated goodwill. Game Plan's opposition failed because it submitted no evidence at trial.
Favorable to Business
Companies can acquire common law trademark priority through asset purchase agreements and use those acquired rights offensively to cancel competing registrations, providing strategic flexibility in brand acquisition.
Risk for Business
Trademark registrants risk cancellation if a challenger acquires superior common law rights through assignment, even post-litigation filing. Failure to submit evidence at trial results in automatic dismissal of opposition claims.
No. 24-1118
Whether the TTAB erred in applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents to refuse registration of the mark KAHWA for cafés and coffee shops based on its meaning as a Kashmiri green tea.
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB's refusal to register the mark KAHWA for cafés and coffee shops. The Board had found the mark generic or merely descriptive based on KAHWA's meaning as a Kashmiri green tea, but the court found the Board's genericness and descriptiveness analyses were flawed, potentially constituting improper new grounds of refusal.
Favorable to Business
Businesses using foreign-language marks benefit from limits on the doctrine of foreign equivalents, particularly where the foreign meaning does not directly describe the goods or services offered in the U.S. market.
Risk for Business
None significant.
No. 23-1880
Whether the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law overturning a jury verdict of trade secret misappropriation and $64 million in damages, and whether correction of inventorship was properly denied.
The Federal Circuit affirmed JMOL overturning a $64 million jury verdict ($2.8M compensatory, $61.2M punitive) for trade secret misappropriation in self-inflating tire technology. The court found Coda's trade secret definitions were overly broad and that Goodyear's independent development was established. The correction of inventorship claim was also denied.
Favorable to Business
Businesses defending against trade secret claims benefit from the court's rigorous scrutiny of trade secret identification, confirming that vaguely defined trade secrets cannot sustain a verdict even after a jury finding of misappropriation.
Risk for Business
Trade secret holders face significant risk of losing even favorable jury verdicts if their trade secret definitions are insufficiently precise or if independent development evidence exists. The $64 million reversal underscores the importance of precise trade secret identification.
Nos. 23-1337, 23-1338
Whether an agreement between a defense contractor and the government regarding the inclusion of 'Drag' costs in the overhead pool for cost-plus contracts is enforceable, and whether the court has jurisdiction over the overhead allocation base decision.
The Federal Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction over the Board's non-final decision on the overhead allocation base but held that an agreement between Pratt & Whitney and the government regarding inclusion of 'Drag' in the overhead cost pool was invalid. The case involves complex cost accounting for government cost-plus contracts and allocation of overhead between commercial and government engine programs.
Favorable to Business
The government benefits from invalidation of cost allocation agreements that may have inflated the government's share of contractor overhead costs, potentially reducing costs on major defense contracts.
Risk for Business
Defense contractors face risk that negotiated cost accounting agreements with the government may be invalidated, creating uncertainty in overhead allocation and potentially reducing reimbursable costs on cost-plus contracts.
No. 24-1551
Whether a patent infringement complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff alleged infringement of an online advertising patent against Meta's Lead Ads product.
The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Adnexus's patent infringement complaint against Meta's Lead Ads and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that Adnexus's amended complaint, including appended claim charts and infringement contentions, sufficiently stated a plausible claim of infringement to survive a motion to dismiss.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders benefit from the court's application of plausibility pleading standards that allow infringement claims supported by claim charts to survive motions to dismiss, preserving access to discovery.
Risk for Business
Technology companies face increased difficulty in obtaining early dismissal of patent infringement suits at the pleading stage when plaintiffs include claim charts mapping patent limitations to accused products.
Last updated 2026-03-03 · Source: CourtListener · Analysis: Claude AI