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.
No. 24-1102
Whether claim terms reciting 'executable program code configured to' perform specified functions invoke means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), in light of the Federal Circuit's intervening precedent in Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.
The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's indefiniteness ruling on the '978 patent and remanded for reconsideration of whether § 112(f) applies, in light of the court's intervening Dyfan precedent addressing when software claim terms invoke means-plus-function treatment. The decision affirmed invalidity of the '638 patent claim under § 102. This case is significant for software patent claim drafting and prosecution, clarifying how 'configured to' language is evaluated.
Favorable to Business
Software patent holders benefit from the opportunity to argue that 'configured to' language does not invoke § 112(f), potentially saving claims from indefiniteness.
Risk for Business
Accused infringers lose certainty from prior indefiniteness rulings and face continued litigation exposure as courts re-evaluate software claim construction under evolving precedent.
No. 25-2016
Whether the district court properly construed the claim terms 'dextromethorphan' and 'quinidine' in the weight-to-weight ratio limitation of the patent covering Nuedexta, and whether the court erred in waiving the Rule 65(c) bond requirement pending appeal.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction preventing Hetero Labs from launching a generic version of Nuedexta (used to treat pseudobulbar affect) but vacated the district court's waiver of the Rule 65(c) bond requirement. The decision reinforces that courts must require adequate security when enjoining generic drug launches, even where the patentee shows a strong likelihood of success.
Favorable to Business
Branded pharmaceutical companies benefit from the affirmed claim construction supporting injunctive relief against generic competitors; however, generic companies benefit from the requirement that bonds be posted.
Risk for Business
Branded drug companies face the burden of posting potentially significant bonds when obtaining preliminary injunctions against generic competitors, increasing the cost of enforcement.
No. 25-1427
Whether a change from 'C2-C12-alkyl' in a provisional application to 'C1-C12-alkyl' in the non-provisional patent constituted new matter precluding the patent from claiming priority to the provisional, thereby rendering the patent anticipated by Pfizer's intervening public disclosure of nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid).
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Enanta's patent covering coronavirus replication inhibitors was invalid as anticipated because the change from C2 to C1 in the alkyl substituent range was not an obvious typographical error and thus constituted new matter. Pfizer's intervening disclosure of nirmatrelvir (the active ingredient in Paxlovid) anticipated the claims. This decision has major implications for pharmaceutical patent prosecution and priority claims.
Favorable to Business
Provides clarity for companies like Pfizer that intervening prior art disclosures can defeat patents where provisional applications do not fully support later-filed claims, protecting freedom to operate.
Risk for Business
Patent applicants face heightened risk that even minor discrepancies between provisional and non-provisional applications may result in loss of priority date and patent invalidation.
No. 24-2088
Whether the district court properly applied IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to bar Valve from asserting invalidity grounds that were not included in a prior IPR petition but allegedly could have been discovered through a reasonably diligent search.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's application of IPR estoppel on two invalidity grounds, finding insufficient evidence to support estoppel on one ground and inadequate consideration of hindsight bias on the other. The decision provides important guidance on the standard for what a 'skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover' under § 315(e)(2).
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers benefit from a more rigorous standard for IPR estoppel, preserving their ability to raise invalidity defenses in district court litigation that were not raised in prior IPR proceedings.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face reduced certainty that IPR estoppel will prevent defendants from raising new invalidity challenges in district court after IPR proceedings conclude.
No. 25-1045
Whether the district court erred in its jury instructions and verdict form regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, non-infringement, and damages for patents directed to wireless communications in building automation systems.
The Federal Circuit vacated the $11.5 million infringement and damages judgments and remanded for a new trial, finding the jury instruction and verdict form were flawed on the § 101 analysis for the '495 patent and that a single infringement question covering all asserted patents was improper. The court affirmed that the '887 and '371 patents survived § 101 challenges. This decision addresses significant issues regarding jury instructions on patent eligibility and proper verdict form design in multi-patent cases.
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers benefit from clearer requirements for jury instructions on patent eligibility and separate infringement findings for each asserted patent.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face increased risk of retrials where verdict forms bundle multiple patents into single infringement questions, adding litigation cost and uncertainty.
No. 24-1730
Whether patents directed to automated systems for capturing, processing, and sharing farming data using passive data collection devices are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and whether the district court erred in declining to find the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that AGI's farming data patents were directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas under § 101 but vacated the district court's determination that the case was not exceptional, remanding for reconsideration of attorney's fees. The decision reinforces that patents claiming data collection, processing, and sharing using conventional technology components are likely patent-ineligible.
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers in agricultural technology benefit from continued invalidation of broadly claimed data-collection patents, and may recover fees in exceptional cases.
Risk for Business
AgTech companies and other data-platform innovators face heightened § 101 challenges when patent claims recite data collection and processing using conventional components, with potential fee liability.
No. 25-1807
Whether the statute of limitations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act had expired before Insulet brought its trade secret misappropriation claim against EOFlow, where Insulet allegedly knew of the misappropriation more than three years before filing suit.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial of JMOL, holding that the DTSA's three-year statute of limitations had expired before Insulet filed suit against EOFlow for misappropriating trade secrets related to insulin patch pump technology. The decision clarifies when the limitations clock begins running under the DTSA, emphasizing that knowledge of misappropriation triggers the limitations period even if the full scope is not yet known.
Favorable to Business
Accused misappropriators benefit from strict enforcement of the DTSA's statute of limitations, providing certainty and limiting stale claims.
Risk for Business
Trade secret owners must act promptly upon discovering potential misappropriation or risk losing the ability to bring DTSA claims, even where the investigation is ongoing.
No. 24-1140
Whether the district court erred in excluding trade secret damages testimony and in overturning a jury's breach of contract damages award in a dispute over Ford's development of competing software after licensing Versata's automotive configuration software.
The Federal Circuit vacated the trade secret damages judgment and remanded for a new trial, instructing the district court to reconsider two previously excluded damages models. The court also reversed the district court's reduction of the breach of contract jury award, reinstating it in full. The decision addresses important questions about proper damages methodologies in trade secret misappropriation cases under both the DTSA and Michigan law.
Favorable to Business
Software licensors benefit from expanded damages theories in trade secret cases and reinforcement that jury awards for breach of licensing agreements should not be lightly overturned.
Risk for Business
Companies that develop internal replacements for licensed software face increased exposure to trade secret misappropriation claims and potentially larger damages awards.
No. 25-1317
Whether a patent owner that retains the right to sue for infringement (including shared control over enforcement and the right to independently prosecute infringement) has constitutional standing to bring a patent infringement suit despite having granted an exclusive license.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of standing, holding that patent owners who retain meaningful exclusionary rights—including the right to independently sue for infringement—have sufficient constitutional standing even when they have granted exclusive licenses. The decision provides important guidance on the balance of rights between patent owners and exclusive licensees for standing purposes.
Favorable to Business
Patent owners who license patents while retaining enforcement rights benefit from clarity that they maintain standing to bring infringement suits, providing flexibility in licensing arrangements.
Risk for Business
Accused infringers face broader exposure to suit from both patent owners and licensees, potentially complicating litigation strategy and settlement negotiations.
No. 24-1236
Whether a non-party to patent litigation can file an IPR petition on the same day as the defendant's filing deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), and whether the Board's obviousness determination was supported by substantial evidence.
The Federal Circuit vacated the Board's obviousness determination for FedEx's sensor-based logistics patent and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to review the Board's refusal to terminate the IPR. The case raises significant concerns about third-party IPR petitions filed strategically on another party's filing deadline, with implications for patent litigation strategy and the integrity of the IPR system.
Favorable to Business
Patent owners benefit from closer scrutiny of obviousness determinations and potential limits on strategic third-party IPR filings designed to circumvent time bars.
Risk for Business
Companies relying on IPR as a defense tool face uncertainty about the viability of coordinated or strategic third-party petitions.
No. 24-1822
Whether patents claiming non-uniform signal constellations for digital communications are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and whether the district court properly denied JMOL on infringement and damages.
The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of patent eligibility for certain claims of two patents while affirming eligibility for claims of two other patents, and affirmed on infringement and damages. The decision addresses the Alice/Mayo framework's application to communication technology patents that optimize signal constellation designs, distinguishing between claims that recite specific technical implementations and those that do not.
Favorable to Business
Technology companies with patents claiming specific technical implementations of communication standards benefit from eligibility findings; damages methodologies were upheld, supporting patent monetization.
Risk for Business
Standards-essential patent holders face continued uncertainty about eligibility for optimization-based claims, and implementers face ongoing infringement exposure where eligibility is sustained.
No. 25-1580
Whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the asserted information constituted protectable trade secrets under California law, and whether the same ideas found to be generally known could support an inventive contribution for patent co-inventorship.
The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL on trade secret misappropriation claims, holding that the plaintiff failed to show each asserted trade secret was protectable because the information was generally known in the field. The court also reversed on patent invalidity, finding that the same ideas could not constitute an inventive contribution. The counterfeiting claim and damages were affirmed. This case provides important guidance on the evidentiary burden for establishing trade secret protection.
Favorable to Business
Defendants in trade secret cases benefit from heightened scrutiny of whether asserted trade secrets are truly protectable and not merely generally known information.
Risk for Business
Trade secret holders face greater risk of having claims dismissed where they cannot clearly demonstrate that asserted secrets are not generally known in the industry.
No. 24-1094
Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law that Teva's headache patents claiming humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies for treating headache were invalid for failure to satisfy the written-description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's JMOL of invalidity, reinstating a jury verdict that Eli Lilly willfully infringed Teva's patents covering the use of humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headache. The case involves Teva's Ajovy product and has significant implications for the scope of written-description and enablement requirements for antibody patents in the pharmaceutical industry.
Favorable to Business
Strengthens patent holders' ability to obtain and enforce genus claims for antibody-based therapeutics, supporting broader patent protection for biologic drug innovators.
Risk for Business
Generic and biosimilar drug developers face greater exposure to infringement liability where broad antibody claims are upheld, potentially delaying market entry.
No. 24-1772
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment of noninfringement of a multicore processor patent based on extraterritoriality grounds and rejection of VLSI's doctrine of equivalents theory.
The Federal Circuit reversed in part the summary judgment of noninfringement, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding extraterritoriality, while affirming on other grounds. The court also addressed the propriety of striking damages expert theories for inadequate disclosure. This decision has significant implications for patent enforcement involving semiconductor technology with global design and manufacturing operations.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders asserting claims against products designed or manufactured abroad benefit from the court's narrowing of the extraterritoriality defense at summary judgment.
Risk for Business
Technology companies with global operations face continued uncertainty about when overseas activities may give rise to domestic patent infringement liability.
No. 24-1761
Whether Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative testimony is admissible at summary judgment even when the witness lacks personal knowledge of the events, and whether the on-sale bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) requires express disclosure of a prior art device's functionality.
The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity under the on-sale bar, holding that Rule 30(b)(6) testimony is admissible regardless of the witness's personal knowledge and that the on-sale bar does not require express public disclosure of functionality. The decision also held that source code constitutes non-hearsay computer commands. This ruling clarifies important evidentiary standards for patent invalidity determinations.
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers benefit from broader use of 30(b)(6) testimony and source code evidence in proving prior art sales, strengthening on-sale bar defenses.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face greater difficulty defending against on-sale bar challenges, as prior sales need not have publicly disclosed the functionality of the prior art product.
Last updated 2026-07-06 · Source: CourtListener · Analysis: Claude AI