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. 25-1580
Whether the plaintiff established legally sufficient evidence that its asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law, and whether ideas that are generally known in the art can constitute an inventive contribution for patent inventorship.
The Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL on trade secret misappropriation claims, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove their asserted trade secrets were protectable because the information was generally known in the field. The court also reversed the patent invalidity finding on inventorship, reasoning that generally known ideas cannot constitute inventive contributions. This decision significantly raises the bar for trade secret protection of information in established fields.
Favorable to Business
Defendants in trade secret litigation benefit from the court's rigorous scrutiny of whether asserted trade secrets are truly not generally known, providing a stronger defense against overbroad claims.
Risk for Business
Trade secret holders face a higher evidentiary burden to establish protectability, particularly in mature industries where claimed secrets may overlap with generally known information.
No. 24-1094
Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law that pharmaceutical patent claims covering the use of humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibodies to treat headache were invalid for lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Federal Circuit reversed JMOL of invalidity of Teva's headache patents, reinstating the jury's findings that Eli Lilly willfully infringed and failed to prove the claims invalid. The court held that the specification's disclosure of one humanized antibody, combined with known prior-art methods of humanization and murine antibodies, adequately supported the genus claims. This is a landmark ruling for pharmaceutical patent scope involving antibody claims.
Favorable to Business
Pharmaceutical and biotech companies benefit from broader protection of genus claims for antibody-based therapeutics, as the court validated reliance on known methods and representative species to support written description and enablement.
Risk for Business
Generic and biosimilar companies face heightened barriers to invalidating broad antibody patent claims, potentially extending exclusivity periods for biologic drugs.
No. 24-1772
Whether a patent holder's doctrine of equivalents theory for multicore processor task-assignment claims fails where the accused functionality occurs extraterritorially, and whether the district court properly struck damages expert theories for disclosure failures.
The Federal Circuit partially reversed summary judgment of noninfringement of VLSI's multicore processor patent, rejecting the district court's extraterritoriality ruling but affirming on other grounds. The court held that VLSI raised genuine fact issues regarding where the accused process steps occurred. The decision clarifies the extraterritorial reach of method patent claims when accused processes span U.S. and foreign operations.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders benefit from the court's rejection of a broad extraterritoriality bar where some accused method steps occur domestically, preserving infringement claims for distributed computing processes.
Risk for Business
Semiconductor and technology companies face continued uncertainty about when method claims involving global processing operations may trigger domestic patent infringement liability.
No. 24-1761
Whether a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative may testify at summary judgment about facts outside personal knowledge, and whether computer source code constitutes hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, in the context of the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of patent invalidity under the on-sale bar, holding that a 30(b)(6) corporate designee may testify beyond personal knowledge at summary judgment and that computer source code is not hearsay because code commands are not 'statements.' This ruling has broad implications for how prior art evidence is authenticated and admitted in patent invalidity challenges.
Favorable to Business
Accused infringers benefit from expanded evidentiary tools for proving prior art sales, including broader use of 30(b)(6) testimony and direct admissibility of source code.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face a more permissive evidentiary landscape for on-sale bar challenges, as corporate representatives can testify about historical sales they did not personally witness and source code is more readily admissible.
No. 26-1026
Whether an ITC respondent may obtain a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2) of a refiled declaratory judgment action when it had previously missed the deadline for seeking a stay of an earlier-filed action involving the same parties and issues.
The Federal Circuit held that an ITC respondent cannot circumvent the statutory deadline for a mandatory stay under § 1659(a) by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a declaratory judgment action after the stay deadline has passed. This decision prevents manipulation of the mandatory stay provision and preserves the parallel litigation rights of patent holders pursuing ITC investigations alongside district court actions.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders pursuing ITC investigations benefit from protection against respondent gamesmanship aimed at staying parallel district court actions through strategic refiling.
Risk for Business
ITC respondents lose the ability to reset the mandatory stay clock through voluntary dismissal and refiling of declaratory judgment actions, reducing their strategic options for managing parallel proceedings.
No. 24-1757
Whether the district court properly approved a $125 million class action settlement resolving claims that the federal judiciary overcharged PACER users by using access fees to fund expenses unrelated to PACER operations, and whether incentive awards to class representatives were permissible.
The Federal Circuit affirmed approval of a $125 million nationwide class action settlement over excessive PACER fees, rejecting an objector's challenges to subject matter jurisdiction, settlement fairness, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards to nonprofit class representatives. The court held that hundreds of thousands of PACER users will be fully or substantially reimbursed for fees charged during the eight-year class period. This decision validates a significant recovery for frequent court record users.
Favorable to Business
Businesses and law firms that frequently access court records through PACER benefit from substantial fee reimbursements, and the ruling validates the use of incentive awards for nonprofit class representatives.
Risk for Business
None significant.
No. 24-1285
Whether the ITC correctly found that Apple's importation and sale of Apple Watch models with blood oxygen measurement features violated § 337 of the Tariff Act by infringing Masimo's wearable pulse oximetry patents.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's limited exclusion order barring importation of certain Apple Watch models, upholding findings that Apple infringed Masimo's patents covering wearable blood oxygenation measurement technology. The court found no error in the Commission's domestic industry determination, validity rulings, or infringement analysis. This high-profile decision sustains a significant import ban on Apple's flagship product.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders asserting rights before the ITC benefit from the court's affirmance of the Commission's analytical framework for domestic industry and infringement, reinforcing the ITC as a powerful enforcement venue.
Risk for Business
Major consumer electronics companies face the reality that ITC exclusion orders can effectively ban popular products from U.S. importation, creating significant commercial disruption and leverage for patent holders.
No. 24-1243
Whether patent claims directed to detecting anomalous program executions using an emulator to compare function calls against a model are abstract under step one of Alice, and whether damages can be based on the defendant's foreign sales.
The Federal Circuit vacated a $185 million judgment, holding that Columbia's computer security patent claims were directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one and remanding for step two analysis. The court also ruled that damages based on the defendant's foreign sales were impermissible. This decision significantly tightens patent eligibility for software-based security inventions and limits extraterritorial damages.
Favorable to Business
Technology companies accused of infringing software patents benefit from the court's rigorous application of Alice step one to computer security claims and the limitation on foreign-sales-based damages.
Risk for Business
Patent holders in the cybersecurity and software space face heightened § 101 eligibility challenges and reduced damages when accused infringers have substantial foreign revenues.
No. 24-2296
Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding a patent holder's damages expert report and granting summary judgment based on absence of a remedy.
The Federal Circuit reversed the exclusion of Exafer's damages expert report and vacated summary judgment for Microsoft, holding that the district court applied an improperly rigid standard in excluding the expert's reasonable royalty analysis. The court found the expert's methodology was sufficiently reliable and that exclusion effectively deprived Exafer of any remedy. This decision reaffirms that Daubert gatekeeping must not be so stringent as to preclude all damages evidence.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders benefit from a more balanced approach to damages expert admissibility, reducing the risk that technical deficiencies in expert methodology will result in case-dispositive exclusion.
Risk for Business
Accused infringers lose a powerful summary judgment tool, as courts must ensure that Daubert exclusions do not effectively eliminate a patent holder's ability to prove damages.
No. 23-1882
Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on inequitable conduct in obtaining patents and on a Walker Process fraud claim for attempted monopolization.
The Federal Circuit vacated summary judgments on both inequitable conduct and Walker Process antitrust fraud claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact on both sides. The court held that factual issues remained regarding whether the patent applicant intentionally withheld material prior art (CYMAX documents) from the PTO, and whether the fraud claim's elements were met. The decision sends both claims to trial, maintaining exposure on both patent and antitrust fronts.
Favorable to Business
Competitors challenging patents obtained through alleged fraud benefit from the court's willingness to send Walker Process monopolization claims to trial where material fact disputes exist.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face continued dual exposure to inequitable conduct defenses and antitrust monopolization claims when prior art disclosure practices during prosecution are questioned.
No. 24-1864
Whether the PTO Director's instructions to the Board governing discretionary denial of inter partes review institution constitute 'general statements of policy' exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the PTO Director's instructions guiding the Board's exercise of discretion to deny IPR institution are general statements of policy exempt from APA notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. The court emphasized that Congress provided no legal right to IPR institution, the instructions do not bind the Director, and non-institution decisions are insulated from judicial review. This preserves the Director's broad discretion to shape IPR institution policy without formal rulemaking.
Favorable to Business
Patent holders benefit from the preservation of the PTO Director's broad discretion to deny IPR institution, reducing the frequency of post-grant challenges to issued patents.
Risk for Business
Companies relying on IPR as a cost-effective alternative to district court patent challenges face continued uncertainty from discretionary denials, with no recourse to require formal rulemaking procedures.
No. 24-1541
Whether the PTAB correctly construed key claim terms in a patent covering systems for streaming partially encrypted media content, and whether the patent claims were obvious over prior art.
The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's claim construction of DivX's streaming encryption patent and vacated the Board's decision rejecting Netflix's obviousness challenge. The court adopted a narrower construction of disputed claim terms and remanded for the Board to reassess obviousness under the correct construction. This decision may impact the validity of patents in the streaming content protection space.
Favorable to Business
Streaming platforms and content distributors benefit from the potential invalidation of patents covering basic encrypted streaming techniques, reducing licensing costs and litigation exposure.
Risk for Business
Patent holders in the digital rights management and encrypted streaming space face heightened invalidity risk when claim terms are given narrower constructions on appeal.
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, and whether the unpatented products had substantial non-infringing uses that would shield the conduct from antitrust liability.
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 exclusively purchasing Ingevity's unpatented carbon honeycomb products, and the court upheld the jury's finding that the honeycombs had substantial non-infringing uses (such as air-intake systems outside the patent's scope), defeating Ingevity's patent-law defense. This is a significant ruling at the intersection of patent rights and antitrust law.
Favorable to Business
Competitors benefit from the ruling, which limits the ability of patent holders to leverage patent rights to foreclose competition in markets for unpatented products with substantial non-infringing uses.
Risk for Business
Patent holders face increased antitrust exposure when structuring licensing arrangements that tie patented and unpatented products, even where the patent covers a subset of uses for the tied product.
No. 24-1669
Whether patent claims directed to a server that tailors content specifications to a wireless device's screen size and capabilities for streaming are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Federal Circuit held that GoTV's streaming media patents claiming server-side content tailoring to device capabilities were ineligible under § 101, reversing the jury's infringement verdict and entering judgment for Netflix. The court found the claims directed to the abstract idea of adapting content to device capabilities. This ruling narrows patent protection for adaptive streaming technology.
Favorable to Business
Streaming and technology companies benefit from reduced exposure to patent assertions covering basic concepts of adaptive content delivery to different devices.
Risk for Business
Patent holders in the content delivery and streaming technology space face significant § 101 vulnerability for claims directed to device-adaptive content presentation.
No. 25-127
Whether the ITC's practice of automatically designating all questionnaire responses as confidential in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations is consistent with the governing statute, and whether the common law right of access to judicial records applies to such proceedings.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that the ITC's blanket practice of automatically designating all questionnaire responses as confidential is incompatible with the statute governing confidential treatment in trade investigations, and that the common law right of public access to judicial records is not abrogated by the relevant statutory provision. This ruling requires the ITC to evaluate confidentiality claims on a case-by-case basis, increasing transparency in trade remedy proceedings.
Favorable to Business
Importers, domestic producers, and the public benefit from greater transparency in trade remedy proceedings, as the ITC can no longer automatically shield all questionnaire responses from disclosure.
Risk for Business
Companies participating in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations face increased risk that commercially sensitive business information submitted in questionnaire responses may become publicly accessible.
Last updated 2026-04-18 · Source: CourtListener · Analysis: Claude AI