Fed. Cir.
September 8, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
______________________ MEGAN S. WOODWORTH, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by FRANK C. CIMINO, JR.; WILLIAM HECTOR, San Francisco, CA. ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, Greenberg Traurig LLP, McLean, VA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by VIVIAN KUO, Washington, DC. ______________________ 2 VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC. v. PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC. Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE, District Judge.1 MOORE, District Judge. Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) owns U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
September 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Biofer S.p.A. appeals a judgment of non-infringement entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On appeal, Biofer challenges the claim construction on which the judgment rests. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND On April 15, 2022, Biofer S.p.A. (“Biofer”) sued Vifor (International) AG (“Vifor”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,759,320 (“’320 patent”).
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Mrs. Elaine Vieth and her husband, Dr. Reinhold W. Vieth, appeal the September 10, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1 and 3–5 of the Vieths’ U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958 (“the ’958 patent”) are unpatentable. J.A. 1–108. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Netlist Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals from two consolidated fi- nal written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which together held unpatentable all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 (“’060 patent”) and 9,318,160 (“’160 patent”). We affirm. I A Netlist’s ’060 and ’160 patents generally relate to com- puter memory modules, such as the one depicted below. Appx10310. Some background about this technology is necessary to understand the parties’ dispute.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals two consolidated final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00996, 2023 WL 8525632 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) (“’918 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00999, 2023 WL 8446338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2023) (“’054 Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918 (“’918 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
September 2, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determin- ing all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 are unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we af- firm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 (the “’339 pa- tent”). The ’339 patent is directed to computer memory sys- tems, and more specifically to “improving the performance and the memory capacity of . . . memory boards that in- clude dual in-line memory modules.” J.A. 109 at 1:18–23.
E.D. Tex.
September 1, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff MeshDynamics’ Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Webex Meetings Survivability (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 82.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is “ relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
E.D. Tex.
August 31, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above -captioned case on May 27, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff Tosoh Corporation (“Tosoh”) and Defendant Dental Direkt GmbH (“Dental Direkt”) (together, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos. 90, 105, 114-19, 135, 163, 164.) This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions, MILs, and disputed exhibits as announced from the bench and read into the record, including additional instructions that were given to the Parties.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because th ose products were covered by a license .
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Precedential Opinion
This patent infringement case raises issues of eligibil- ity, infringement, and damages and relates to communica- tion systems that use non-uniform constellations that have increased capacity compared to conventional, uniform con- stellations operating within a similar signal-to-noise ratio band. Constellation Designs, LLC sued LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Ala- bama, Inc.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Precedential Opinion
MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharma- ceuticals, Inc. appeal the decision of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Delaware holding that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 11,091,439, 11,091,440, 11,098,015, and 11,298,349, which are owned by Exelixis, Inc., are not invalid. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s finding that the as- serted claims of the ’439, ’440, and ’015 patents have ade- quate written description pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 (the “’654 patent”) and 9,696,868 (the “’868 patent”), which relate to graphical user interfaces that allow a user to switch between applications by displaying images of applications in a three-dimensional space and, upon selection of an image, displaying the cor- responding application in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (the “’048 patent”), which relates to a graphical user interface that displays webpages as ob- jects in a three-dimensional space and, upon a user’s selec- tion of an object, displays the corresponding webpage in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. and Google LLC (to- gether, “Apple”) filed petitions for inter partes review chal- lenging claims 1-18 of the ’048 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Fed. Cir.
August 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because those products were covered by a license.
E.D. Tex.
August 28, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC’s First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12 (b)(1) (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #88). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case.
E.D. Tex.
August 28, 2026
Order
Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“ Defendant”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 83). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion and an affirmative finding that Plaintiff Edge Networking Systems LLC (“Edge”) has standing to assert the Asserted Patents1 in this case. (Dkt. No. 252). Defendant has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 255).
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to this court’s July 9, 2026 orders staying the above-captioned ap- peals and of DISH Network L.L.C. and DirecTV, LLC’s un- opposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal Nos. 2026- 1331 and 2026-1366, ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C. 3 IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The stay imposed by the July 9, 2026 orders is lifted. (2) The motion to dismiss is granted. Appeal Nos. 2026-1331, 2026-1366, and Appeal No.
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Precedential Opinion
AML IP, LLC (“AML”) sued Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. and The Buckle, Inc. (“Appellees”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979 (“the ’979 patent”). Each Appellee moved to dismiss—for both (1) improper venue and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, due to the ’979 patent’s claims being allegedly ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 The district court, in a single order, dismissed on both grounds.
Fed. Cir.
August 28, 2026
Precedential Opinion
T Mobile US, Inc. and T Mobile USA, Inc. (collectively, T Mobile) and patent owner KAIFI LLC (KAIFI) settled a lawsu-it in which KAIFI al-leged that T Mobile infringed se-veral claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728 (’728 patent). At the time of settlement, an ex parte reex-amination (EPR) of the ’728 patent, which T Mobile had initiated, was pend- ing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Pa- tent Office). Under the s-ettlement agreement, T Mobile agreed to make an immediate payment to KAIFI for a cer- tain amount, which it did.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendants Vivint LLC and Vivint, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #7) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case. On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Duke W. Zinser (“Plaintiff”) filed this action alleging that Defendants Vivint, LLC and Vivint, Inc. (collectively, “Vivint” or “Defendants”) has and continues to infringe one or more claim s of U.S.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Order
(CTO −1) On August 7, 2026, the Panel transferred 7 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3190, ECF No. 64 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable James Rodney Gilstrap.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s (“ Plaintiff” or “Gamba”) Renewed Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend its Infringement Contentions (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 87.) In the Motion, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its infringement contentions for U.S. Patent No. 9,961,507 (the “’507 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,772,193 (the “’193 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,674,684 (the “’684 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents .”) (Id.
E.D. Tex.
August 27, 2026
Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Permanent Injunction (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Barco Inc. and Barco NV (“Barco”) . (Dkt. No. 250.) Having considered the Motion, all related briefing, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Barco filed the above- captioned case against Defendants Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink”) on November 14, 2023. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Order on Motion
2 ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC. v. ASCENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. O R D E R Having “entered a settlement agreement that resolves all claims between them” in this matter, ECF No. 14 at 8, the parties jointly move to remand this appeal in light of the district court’s August 5, 2026 indicative ruling that it would partially vacate and modify its March 6, 2026 final judgment if this court remanded.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from a final written deci- sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), reject- ing Apple’s arguments that claims 1-3 and 5 of Smart Mobile Technology LLC’s (“Smart Mobile’s”) U.S. Patent No. 9,319,075 (the“’075 patent”) are unpatentable as obvi- ous. We affirm. I Smart Mobile owns the ’075 patent, entitled “Wireless Devices with Transmission Control and Multiple Internet Protocol (IP) Based Paths of Communication.” J.A. 48.
Fed. Cir.
August 27, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in related inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) of Smart Mobile Technologies LLC’s (“Smart Mobile’s”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,019,946 (the “’946 patent”) and 8,842,653 (the “’653 patent”) (together the “challenged patents”).
Fed. Cir.
August 26, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC (Zilkr) appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) final written decision (FWD) holding claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,254 unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we vacate-in-part, affirm-in-part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Zilkr owns the ’254 patent, relating to a unified ser- vices platform that integrates various communication ser- vices for a user and uses the user’s telephone number as a common subscriber identifier. ’254 patent at Abstract, 1:15–19, 1:40–56.
Fed. Cir.
August 21, 2026
Precedential Opinion
______________________ AMANDA L'ESPERANCE, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by STEVEN R. DANIELS, Austin, TX. 2 US INVENTOR, INC. v. SQUIRES WEILI J. SHAW, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by YAAKOV ROTH; MICHAEL S. FORMAN, FAHD H. PATEL, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
Fed. Cir.
August 19, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
10x Genomics (“10x”) appeals final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) brought by Parse Biosciences, Inc. (“Parse”). The Board determined that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,155,981 (“the ’981 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,240,197 (“the ’197 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,697,013 (“the ’013 patent”), are unpatentable as ob- vious. Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., No. IPR2023-00876, 2024 WL 4218540, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2024) (“’981 Decision”); Parse Biosciences, Inc. v.
Fed. Cir.
August 19, 2026
Precedential Opinion
VDPP, LLC (VDPP) appeals orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (1) dismissing VDPP’s complaint without granting leave to amend, (2) awarding attorney fees to Volkswagen under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and (3) sanctioning VDPP’s counsel, Wil- liam Peterson Ramey, III. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part. BACKGROUND In 2023, VDPP, represented by Mr. Ramey, sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen) for al- leged infringement of U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
August 18, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc. (“Westport”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,298,829 (the “’829 patent”) and 6,575,138 (the “’138 patent”), which relate to “an injection valve . . . which includes a passive hydraulic link.” J.A. 94 (’829 pat. 1:12-17), J.A. 111 (’138 pat. 1:16-21). Robert Bosch LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (together “Bosch”) filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of various claims of the ’829 and ’138 patents.
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Errata
Please make the following change: On page 3, footnote 1, change “permissible” to “imper- missible”
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC (collectively, “Jacki Easlick”) appeal two decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and re- consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns Jacki Easlick’s TOTE HANGER® brand handbag hanger hook (“Tote Hanger”), associated with U.S. Design Patent No. D 695,526 (“the D’526 pa- tent”).
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Precedential Opinion
TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”) petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243 (“’243 patent”), owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”). TVision relied on a publication authored by Ying-li Tian (“Tian”) as a prior-art reference. The Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board (“Board”) determined each challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over prior art combinations that included Tian.
Fed. Cir.
August 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate LLC (collectively, “Jacki Easlick”) appeal two decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying their motions for a preliminary injunction and re- consideration of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns Jacki Easlick’s TOTE HANGER® brand handbag hanger hook (“Tote Hanger”), associated with U.S. Design Patent No. D 695,526 (“the D’526 pa- tent”).
E.D. Tex.
August 13, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Micron and Avnet to Produce Venue - Related Discovery (“Motion”) . (Dkt. No. 85.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Venue A patent infringement case may only be brought in a proper venue. 28 U.S.C.
Fed. Cir.
August 12, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R In response to a patent infringement suit brought by Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd., Canadian Solar, Inc. (“CSI”) com- menced the underlying inter partes review (“IPR”) proceed- ing. CSI appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 was not 2 CANADIAN SOLAR, INC. v. MAXEON SOLAR PTE. LTD. shown to be unpatentable. Maxeon now moves to dismiss the appeal as moot in view of its “unilateral covenant not to sue” CSI for infringement. ECF No. 6 at 21.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Order
Before the Cou rt are several related motions, memorandum orders and a report and recommendation. Plaintiffs ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., Celerity IP, LLC, Innovative Sonic Limited (“Plaintiffs”), and Third Party Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. ( “ASUSTeK”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Breach of FRAND Claims (“MSJ”). (Dkt. No. 611). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions to Exclude the Supplemental Opinions of Drs. Van der Weide, Villasenor, Wicker, Ms. Kindler, and Mr. Melin. (Dkt. Nos. 990, 991, 992, 993, 994). This Order sets forth the Court’s rulings and reasoning and provides additional instructions to the parties as necessary. I.
E.D. Tex.
August 11, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants /Intervenors’ Motion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 for Determination That the ETSI Contract Applies to Plaintiffs’ Patents Essential to Optional Portions of a Cellular Standard. Dkt. No. 578. The Motion is fully briefed. (See Dkt. Nos. 622, 691, 759). “Defendants ask the Court under Rule 44.1 to hold that the ETSI IPR Policy’s FRAND contract applies to Plaintiffs’ patents that are essential to optional portions of the 4G and 5G cellular standards.” Id. at 1–2; see id. at 12.
Fed. Cir.
August 11, 2026
Precedential Opinion
O R D E R Range of Motion Products, LLC filed a petition for re- hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Armaid Company Inc. Industrial De- signers Society of America, Inc., Institute for Design Sci- ence and Public Policy, Oake Law Office, PLLC, American Intellectual Property Law Association, and Perry Saidman requested leave to file briefs as amici curiae, which the court granted.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
iCharts LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of Tableau Software, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Appellant iCharts LLC (“iCharts”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,271,892 (“’892 patent”), 8,520,000 (“’000 patent”), and 9,712,595 (“’595 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The ’892 patent claims priority to a 2008 provi- sional application. J.A. 79, 1:7–9.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent 10,755,409 (“the ’409 patent”) had been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2023-1369, 2025 WL 676732 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2025), J.A. 1–84 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Fed. Cir.
August 10, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
VL Collective IP, LLC (“VideoLabs”) appeals the October 2, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–24 of VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (“the ’559 patent”) are unpatentable. Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLC, No. IPR2023-00630, 2024 WL 4374920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2024), J.A. 1–60. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. BACKGROUND The ’559 patent is generally directed to “controlling the flow of content” between a content provider (“server”) and a user’s device (“terminal”).
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s (“Gamba”) First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Dkt. No. 38.) Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Gamba filed the above -captioned case against Samsung on April 25, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Infringement Report of Dr. Madisetti Regarding the ’814 Patent (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 185.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the nuanced means-plus-function claim constructions that are at issue, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff NEC Corporation (“NEC”) sued Defendants Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations L td. ( collectively, “Anker”) , accusing them of infringing six U.S. patents. (Dkt.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ and Intervenors’ Motion to Exclude the Supplemental Damages Opinions of Dr. Gary Lomp (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 947). The Motion is fully briefed pursuant to the Court’s instructions. (See Dkt. No. 885). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion. I.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment that Defendants Infringe Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,359 (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 601). In the Motion, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment that Defendants infringe Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,359 (the “’359 Patent”). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment No. 7 Regarding Plaintiffs’ Declaratory Judgment Claims (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants and Intervenors. (Dkt. No. 594). In the Motion, Defendants and Intervenors move for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs ’ claims for declaratory judgment. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
E.D. Tex.
August 7, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment #6: Plaintiffs’ Failure to Mark Precludes Pre-Suit Damages for the Asserted Claims of the ’489, ’868, ’359, ’754 and ’402 Patents (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 593). The Motion is fully briefed. ( See Dkt. Nos. 655, 715, 779). Defendants argue that they satisfied their initial burden of identifying unmarked products under Arctic Cat , Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
Fed. Cir.
August 7, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
WAG Acquisition, LLC (“WAG”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) finding claims 1 and 4 of its U.S. Patent No. 2 IN RE WAG ACQUISITION, LLC 8,327,011 (the “’011 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,005,600 (“Hill”). We affirm. I WAG owns the ’011 patent, which is entitled “Stream- ing Media Buffering System.” J.A. 235.
Fed. Cir.
August 6, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Ravin Crossbows, LLC (Ravin) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) hold- ing claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,015 unpatentable. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Ravin owns the ’015 patent, which relates to archery bows and crossbows, wherein rotatable string guides are in tension with the draw string that drives an arrow. ’015 pa- tent at Abstract, 1:66–2:23. Claim 1 is at issue: 1.
E.D. Tex.
August 5, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendant’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Expert Report of Dr. Alyssa Apsel. Dkt. No. 165. In its Motion, Defendant seeks to supplement the report of its technical expert, Dr. Alyssa Apsel, to address a new prior art reference, the Micron U48a DRAM (“U48a”). Defendant contends that the reference was first produced pursuant to a third- party subpoena on June 2, 2026. Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. I.
Fed. Cir.
August 5, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
______________________ AARON PATRICK BOWLING, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also rep- resented by MICHAEL JOSEPH HARRIS, CHRISTOPHER J. RENK; MICHAEL J. SEBBA, Los Angeles, CA; JONATHAN SWISHER, San Francisco, CA. SETH W. LLOYD, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washing- ton, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by BRIAN 2 NIKE, INC. v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA CANADA INC. ROBERT MATSUI; MEHRAN ARJOMAND, ALEX S. YAP, Los An- geles, CA; KYLE W.K. MOONEY, New York, NY.
Fed. Cir.
August 4, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Import Global, LLC (Import Global) appeals the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring I mport Global from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, or im- porting into the United States its Neat Socket® product. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and remand for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Socket Solutions, LLC (Socket Solutions) owns U.S. Pa- tent No.
Fed. Cir.
August 4, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Scilex”), Itochu Chemical Frontier Corp. (“Itochu”), and Oishi Koseido Co., Ltd. (“Oi- shi”) (collectively, the “Scilex plaintiffs”) appeal a final judgment of non-infringement entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Scilex is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
August 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
MPH Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Apple of in- fringing various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,346,949; 9,762,397; 9,712,494; 9,712,502; and 9,838,362 (collec- tively, the “ ’949 patent family ”); as well as U.S. Patent No. 7,937,581.
Fed. Cir.
August 3, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Amazon.com Services LLC (Amazon) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to stay these patent infringement proceedings. Headwater Re- search LLC (Headwater) opposes. Amazon replies. For the reasons below, we deny the petition. On August 27, 2025, Headwater filed two suits at the center of this petition.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
The Regents of the University of Michigan (“Michigan”) appeals from a decision of the U .S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting Leica Microsys- tems, Inc.’s (“Leica”) motion for summary judgment of non- infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,277 ,169 (“the ’169 patent”), which relates to fluorescence detection sys- tems for samples having fluorophores, a type of fluorescent marker.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Order on Motion
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. JACK H. DOVEY, JR., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2026-1467 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in No. 2:25-cv-00730-DGE, Chief Judge David G. Estudillo.
Fed. Cir.
July 31, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
This case comes back to us after we previously re- manded it for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) to consider, in its inter partes review (“IPR”) pro- ceeding, the patentability of proposed substitute claims 48 and 49 of Pfizer Inc.’s (“Pfizer’s”) U.S. Patent 9,492,559 (“the ’559 patent”). On remand, the Board determined in a final written decision that those proposed substitute claims would have been obvious over certain prior art publications and therefore denied Pfizer’s motion to amend its claims. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. v.
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Schmeisser GmbH (Schmeisser) appeals orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming (1) constru- ing certain distance -related claim terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,866,045 as indefinite, (2) granting partial summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement in favor of AC- Unity d.o.o. (AC-Unity), and (3) dissolving a preliminary injunction previously entered by the court against AC - Unity. We reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(LOURIE, PROST, and STARK, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 30, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
July 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
G+ Communications, LLC (“G+”) appeals from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision by the U.S. Pa- tent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130 (“the ’130 patent”) are unpatentable. For the following rea- sons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I The ’130 patent claims a method and device for coding uplink signal transmission applicable to 5G mobile commu- nications systems. ’130 patent Abstract; see Appellant’s Br. 2, 5.
E.D. Tex.
July 28, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On July 8, 2026, the C ourt held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms U.S. Patent Nos. 7,822,841 (“’841 Patent”); 8,352,584 (“’584 Patent”); 7,721,282 (“’282 Patent”); 7,712,080 (“’080 Pate nt”); and 11,032,000 (“’000 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).1 Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their supplemental claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos.
E.D. Tex.
July 27, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendant FleetMind Seon Solutions Inc’s (“FleetMind”) Motion to Change Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. No. 40. In its Motion, Defendant seeks transfer to the Central District of California (“CDCA”) in light of Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, which stem from a sales presentation featuring the accused product to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”). Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD A.
Fed. Cir.
July 27, 2026
Precedential Opinion
The Board of Regents of the University of Texas (UT) owns United States Patent No. 6,596,296. The patent de- scribes and claims a composition (for use, e.g., in an im- plant) containing a drug-releasing biodegradable polymer fiber—a fiber in which a therapeutic agent is dispersed. In 2017, UT sued Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), accus- ing BSC of infringing certain claims of the ’296 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing BSC’s drug-eluting coronary stent systems.
Fed. Cir.
July 24, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Amsted Rail Co., Inc. (Amsted) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) de- termining certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,137,915 (’915 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and deny- ing Amsted’s motion to amend. Hum Indus. Tech., Inc. v. Amsted Rail Co., Inc., No. IPR2023-00540, 2024 WL 3678789 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (Decision). We see no error in the Board’s claim construction, factual findings, or de- nial of the motion to amend. We affirm.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (Dkt. # 62). Having considered the M otion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED . BACKGROUND I. Factual Background and Procedural History This is a patent infringement case. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiffs WAPP Tech Limited Partnership and WAPP Tech Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “WAPP”) filed this action asserting that Defendant Apple Inc.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion to Stay this Action Pending Final Disposition of Asserted Claims Challenged in Proceedings Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”). (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff Emerging Automotive LLC (“Emerging Auto”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. No. 45.) Consolidated Defendants Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc.
E.D. Tex.
July 23, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Motion to Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e) to Include Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited (“Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. No. 359.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the above -captioned suit against Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“BOE”) on November 8, 2023, alleging infringement of six patents. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Moarbes, LLP (“Mo arbes”), which represented FrenchPorte IP LLC (“French Porte”) in the underlying case, appeals the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois ordering Moarbes to pay fifty percent of a $46,438.60 sanctions award for repeated fail- ures to comply with court orders. FrenchPorte IP, LLC v. C.H.I. Overhead Doors, Inc. , No. 2:21- cv-2014, 2024 WL 1307790 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2024) (“Sanctions Order”).
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Ceiva Opco, LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of Ama- zon.com, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of ineligibil- ity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND I. At issue in this appeal are four representative claims from four patents: claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573 (“’573 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,203,930 (“’930 patent”), claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,654,562 (“’562 pa- tent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
July 23, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) found a 19 U.S.C. § 1337 violation based on Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC’s infringement of 2 CARTESSA AESTHETICS, LLC v. ITC Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was to expire on March 29, 2026. Following patent expiration, Cartessa moves to consolidate its appeals, dismiss them as moot, and vacate the final determination. The Commission does not oppose.
Fed. Cir.
July 22, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois that (1) dissolved an earlier-issued prelimi- nary injunction against defendant -appellee Zhouty, and (2) denied a temporary restraining order against newly added defendants. We affirm. I Appellant Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. (Shen- zhen) owns U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982, which claims a design for a foldable fan.
E.D. Tex.
July 21, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Partial Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Dkt. No. 38.) For the reasons stated herein, Samsung’s Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Zophonos Inc. (“Zophonos”) filed the above -captioned case against Samsung on July 30, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Appellant Woodway USA, Inc. appeals the final judg- ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of non- infringement in favor of Appellee LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. Because the district court’s grant of judgment relied on an overly restrictive claim construction , we vacate and re- mand for further proceedings. I A Woodway USA, Inc. (Woodway) is the owner of U.S. Pa- tent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R Upon consideration of Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.’s unop- posed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, Appeal No. 2026-1500, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted to the extent Appeal Nos. 2026- 1500 and 2026-1525 are deconsolidated; the revised official captions are reflected in this order; and Appeal No. 2026- 1500 is dismissed with each party to bear its own costs. The opening brief for Appeal No. 2026-1525 is due no later than 60 days from the date of entry of this order.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Dental Monitoring SAS (“Dental Monitoring”) appeals from two inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decisions of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that claims 1, 2, 4, 7–8, and 13–16 of U.S. Patent 11,049,248 (“the ’248 patent”) and claims 1, 2, and 4–6 of U.S. Patent 11,109,945 (“the ’945 patent”) had been shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Align Tech., Inc. v. Dental Monitoring SAS, IPR2024-00052, 2025 WL 1129266 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2025), J.A. 52–129 (“’248 patent IPR”); Align Tech., Inc. v.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Keysight Technologies, Inc. (“Keysight”) appeals from a Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) determining that Keysight failed to meet its bur- den to show that claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s (“Centripetal’s”) U.S. Patent 11,012,474 (“the ’474 patent”) would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date. J.A. 1–111 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) concluding that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 24, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789 (the ’789 patent) were not shown to be un- patentable. We vacate the Board’s decision and remand. BACKGROUND I Zentian Ltd. (“Zentian”) owns the ’789 patent, which is directed toward systems, circuits, and coprocessors used in speech recognition. Claims 1 and 29 are representative for purposes of this appeal.
Fed. Cir.
July 21, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Slingshot Printing LLC (“Slingshot”) appeals from the May 20, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 of Slingshot’s U.S. Patent No. 7,152,951 (“the ’951 patent” or “the patent”) are unpatentable. Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2022-01541, 2024 WL 2278719 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2024), J.A. 1–50. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
E.D. Tex.
July 18, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of David Kennedy (the “Motion”) . (Dkt. No. 579). The motion is fully briefed . (See Dkt. Nos. 632, 694, 760). The Motion w as orally argued at the pretrial confer ence on July 17, 2026 and granted in part, for the reasons more formally set forth below. Except to the extent granted at the pretrial conference and herein, the Motion is denied. I.
Fed. Cir.
July 17, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 17, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
July 17, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Woodway USA, Inc. (“Woodway”) appeals from a final inter partes review decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which held claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 of U.S. Patent 10,561,884 (“the ’884 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, LLC, IPR2023- 00843 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2024), J.A. 1–59 (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
E.D. Tex.
July 16, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Retailer Claims. 1 (Dkt. #219). Therein, the movants ask the Court to stay Plaintiff Amide Beverage Company, LLC’s patent-infringement claims against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Woot.com LLC, Walmart, Inc., Sam’s West, Inc., Albertson’s, LLC, The Kroger Company, Target Corporation, Wal green Company, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 7 -Eleven, Inc., Circle K Stores, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation pending a final resolution of the claim against Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. (Dkt. #219- 2).
E.D. Tex.
July 16, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment, and Post - judgment Interest (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Collision Communications, Inc. (“Collision”). (Dkt. No. 343.) Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. I. BACKGROUND Collision filed the above-captioned case against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) on December 12, 2023. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
July 16, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,823 (’823 patent) and claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708 (’708 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 1 Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00312, 2024 WL 3678426 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (’823 Patent Decision); Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00313, 2024 WL 3585542 (P.T.A.B. July 30, 2024) (’708 Patent Decision). We affirm.
Fed. Cir.
July 16, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 1–6 and 8–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,864 (’864 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Canon U.S.A., Inc v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00309, 2024 WL 3608171 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2024) (Decision). We affirm. BACKGROUND The ’864 patent concerns a heater chip for use in print- heads where the number of bondpads is reduced.
E.D. Tex.
July 15, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to D ismiss for I mproper Venue or Alternatively Transfer to the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 19 (“Motion”).) H aving considered the Motion, the associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. The Court also finds that, rather than a dismissal, the above-captioned case should be TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Texas. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff WeCrevention Inc.
Fed. Cir.
July 15, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Zoho Corp. Pvt., Ltd. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) to vacate its order denying trans- fer and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX). Knossos Global Systems LLC opposes. We deny the petition. In April 2025, Knossos brought this suit in EDTX against Zoho, an Indian company, alleging its email soft- ware solution, Zoho Mail, infringes Knossos’s patents.
Fed. Cir.
July 15, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
ASSA ABLOY AB (ASSA) appeals the final written de- cisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruling that ASSA failed to prove that the challenged claims1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705 (’705 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208 (’208 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd., No. IPR2022-01006, 2024 WL 3799645 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2024) (FWD)2; ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd., Nos. IPR2022-01045, IPR2022-01089, 2024 WL 3799652 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2024).
Fed. Cir.
July 15, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Upon consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 24-889, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The mandate of this court that issued October 24, 2024, is recalled, the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s June 25, 2024, opinion and judgment are vacated. We further remand this case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Fed. Cir.
July 14, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R The International Trade Commission moves to dismiss Viking Therapeutics, Inc.’s cross-appeal, No. 2025-2162. The Commission states that Ascletis Pharma Inc. et al. (collectively, “Ascletis”) and Jinzi Jason Wu support the motion. The Commission indicates that Viking does not oppose the motion and “agrees that a panel of this Court would properly dismiss Viking’s cross-appeal,” but that Vi- king purportedly “reserves all rights to challenge the dis- missal of the cross-appeal in future proceedings.” ECF No. 21 at 2.
Fed. Cir.
July 14, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 14, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
July 14, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(LOURIE and PROST, Circuit Judges, and SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge1). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT July 14, 2026 Date 1 Honorable Arun Subramanian, District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
E.D. Tex.
July 13, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Motion for Alternative Service (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Altheatridge LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 8.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the above -captioned case against Defendant CipherLab USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) on April 17, 2026. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant is a Texas corporation with a registered agent in Texas. (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
July 13, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) a certain subset of Plaintiff’s patent claims . (Dkt. No. 24.) Samsung contends that KIWI’s pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims should be dismissed , while KIWI represents that “it is not currently maintaining” these claims. (Dkt. No. 26 at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the subsequent briefing, and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
E.D. Tex.
July 13, 2026
Order
Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Defendant”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Willfulness Claims (“Motion”) (Dkt. Nos. 43.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56), recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 57), with Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filing a Response (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
July 13, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendant requests the Court to transfer the above- captioned patent case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses . Defendant urges that the Central District of California ( “CDCA”) would be more convenient because Plaintiff is based there. However, Defendant is an Israeli corporation. Defendant itself does not appear to have any connection to CDCA.
Showing the 100 most recent of 12,232 opinions (current through September 8, 2026). Browse the complete archive by year, or use the filters above (JavaScript required).