Fed. Cir.
October 23, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Daitona Carter moved to intervene in a patent in- fringement action, asserting she is the inventor. The dis- trict court denied her motion, and she has appealed to this court. Solos Tech. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal No. 2026-1721 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2026). She has also unsuc- cessfully attempted to participate in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) related to the patents.
Fed. Cir.
October 22, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R In November and December 2025, Fleet Connect Solu- tions LLC and OBD Sensor Solutions LLC—both Texas en- tities—filed three related patent infringement suits against Xirgo Technologies, LLC and Xirgo Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “Xirgo”)—headquartered in Illinois—in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir- ginia. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Xirgo moved to transfer the November actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Fed. Cir.
October 22, 2026
Order on Motion
O R D E R Upon consideration of Shoals Technologies Group, LLC’s motion to voluntarily withdraw its appeal, which 2 SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC v. ITC states that the International Trade Commission does not oppose, and of intervenors Voltage LLC and Ningbo Volt- age Smart Production Co. (collectively, “Voltage”)’s opposi- tion, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed, and costs are awarded to Voltage.
E.D. Tex.
October 21, 2026
Memorandum Order
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 323. In its Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 317) , which found that the Toyota defendants held a license to the asserted patents, through a prior license agreement with Taurus IP, LLC, an entity controlled by Erich Spangenberg. Id. at 1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Toyota’s discovery conduct justifies supplementation of the summary judgment record to include a lengthy declaration from Mr. Spangenberg. Id.
E.D. Tex.
October 20, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #89) and ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ( Dkt. #74). Having considered both M otions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that both Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case.
E.D. Tex.
October 20, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Overlength Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #52) (the “Motion”). Having considered the M otion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. On October 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss (the “Partial Motion to Dismiss”) seeking dismissal of Counts IV (Declaratory Judgment of Unclean Hands) and VI (Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability Based on Inequitable Conduct) of the Amended Answer and Counterclaims filed by Defendants (Dkt.
Fed. Cir.
October 19, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Google LLC (“Google”) appeals a Final Written Deci- sion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2022-01545 regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,728,704 (“the ’704 patent”). J.A. 1–44 (“Decision”). The Board deter- mined that Google did not demonstrate that any of claims 1–23 of the ’704 patent are unpatentable. Decision at 41–42. For the reasons below, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Fed. Cir.
October 16, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Craig L. Linden appeals the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s grant of ResMed, In c., ResMed Corp., and ResMed Holdings Pty Ltd.’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Mr. Linden owns U.S. Patent No. 9,639,150 ( the “’150 patent”). The ’150 patent is titled “Powered Physical Displays on Mobile Devices” and issued on May 2, 2017. J.A. 21.
Fed. Cir.
October 14, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and PROST, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 14, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
October 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Piranha Media Distribution LLC (“Piranha”) sued Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) for infringement of patent claims re- lating to the integration of advertisements in digital media. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Hulu’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the asserted patents do not claim patent-eligible sub- ject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Piranha Media Distrib., LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 748 F. Supp. 3d 928, 938–39 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (“Decision”). We affirm. I. BACKGROUND In January 2024, Piranha asserted U.S. Patent Nos.
Fed. Cir.
October 14, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
UPL Ltd. (UPL) owns U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727, whose subject is certain fungicidal combinations—of a di- thiocarbamate fungicide, a succinate dehydrogenase inhib- itor (SDHI) fungicide, and at least one of an ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor (EBI) fungicide or a quinone outside inhibitor (QOI) fungicide. ’727 patent, Abstract. Syngenta Crop Protection AG (Syngenta) successfully sought from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a post-grant re- view (PGR), under 35 U.S.C.
Fed. Cir.
October 13, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 13, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
October 13, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and PROST, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 13, 2026 Date
Fed. Cir.
October 13, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Cir- cuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 13, 2026 Date
E.D. Tex.
October 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a hearing in the above-captioned case on September 1, 2026 regarding two pending motions between Plaintiff Veracyte, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. and Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos. 60 and 70.) Through targeted meet and confer efforts, the Parties resolved two disputes as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Sonic Healthcare USA, Inc. and Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (“Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
October 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above -captioned case on September 8, 2026. At the conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions and motions in limine (“MILs”) filed by Plaintiff Oribel Pte. Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Carter’s Retail, Inc., The William Carter Company, and Skip Hop (collectively, “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) (Dkt. Nos. 181, 107, 106, 108, 105, 99, 100, 104, 172, and 174).
E.D. Tex.
October 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above -captioned case on August 27, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, a motion in limine (“MIL”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff NEC Corp. (“NEC”) and Defendants Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Ltd. (“ Anker”) (together, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos.
E.D. Tex.
October 9, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned case on September 23, 2026. At the conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions and motions in limine (“MILs”) filed by Plaintiff Cloud Byte LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Cloud Byte” ) and Defendants Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Dell”) (collectively, the “Parties”) (Dkt. Nos. 424, 195, 392, 395, 391, 393, 396, 394, 204, 191, 194, 329, and 328).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 8, 2026
Order
Pending before the Court are thir teen Moti ons to Stay , pending in thirty-two member actions of MDL 3176. Having considered the Motions and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED. BACKGROUND On April 2, 2026 , the United State s Judicial Pa nel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order that transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for co ordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (Case No. 4:26 -md-3176, Dkt. #1).
Fed. Cir.
October 8, 2026
Rule 36 Judgment
(DYK, PROST, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 8, 2026 Date
E.D. Tex.
October 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are three Motions filed by various member groups in Case No. 4:26-md-031761. First, six defendant groups brought substantively identical or nearly identical motions, as represented by Defendants MaRs Triger, LLC and Peter Brennen’s Opposed Motion and Joinder in Certain Defendants’ Motion to Stay and Enlarge Deadlines Relating to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Preliminary Injunction Filings, Require a Structured Conferral Process, and Set a 1 Defendants Mister Guns, LLC, Thomas Carter II, Brandi C…
E.D. Tex.
October 7, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.’s (“TSMC”) Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion”). (Case No. 2:24-cv-00623, Dkt. No. 26.) Defendant requests the Court to transfer the above-captioned patent case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Defendant urges that the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) would be more convenient. However, Defendant is a Taiwanese corporation, and Defendant itself does not appear to have any connection to NDCA.
Fed. Cir.
October 7, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Oliver Wendel Gamble appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) that affirmed the exam- 2 IN RE GAMBLE iner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 13–15, and 18 of U.S. Pa- tent Application No. 17/490,077 (the “’077 application”) as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Mr. Gamble also ap- peals the Board’s denial of a request for rehearing on claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20, newly rejected by the Board as indefinite under § 112(b). Because Mr.
Fed. Cir.
October 6, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Google LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel transfer from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). The University of Southern California (“USC”) opposes.1 For the following reasons, we grant the petition. 1 The court grants USC’s motion to waive Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(d)(3) for its opposition. 2 IN RE GOOGLE LLC USC filed this suit in WDTX accusing Google, head- quartered in NDCA, of infringing U.S.
Fed. Cir.
October 5, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
SnapRays, LLC appeals the grant of O’Reilly Winship LLC’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denial of its own partial motion for summary judgment of infringement. For the reasons outlined below, we re- verse-in-part, affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I This case concerns cover plates: the thin, frequently plastic plates that cover interior electrical outlets or light switch wall receptacles.
Fed. Cir.
October 5, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
AlexSam, Inc. (“AlexSam”) owns U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (“’608 patent”) covering systems facilitating use of multifunction cards, including prepaid gift cards. AlexSam sued Simon Property Group, L.P. (“Simon”) for infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. Simon filed a third-party indemnification complaint including a claim for attorneys’ fees against Blackhawk Network, Inc. (“Blackhawk”), which Simon alleged had supplied it with the allegedly infringing gift cards.
Fed. Cir.
October 2, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (“Pioneer”) appeals a final written decision in a post-grant review proceeding challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,371,055 (“the ’055 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined claims 1–33 of the ’055 patent are unpatentable for lack of enablement. We affirm. BACKGROUND The ’055 patent describes enzymes that exhibit what the parties refer to as a “dual herbicide-degrading func- tion.” Appellant’s Br. 17–20, 30; Appellee’s Br. 7–11, 38.
Fed. Cir.
October 1, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Satius Holding, LLC (Satius) appeals a final judgment of invalidity of claims 1, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,385 entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2018, Satius sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) for allegedly infringing claims 1, 11, and 18 of the ’385 pa- tent.
Fed. Cir.
October 1, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Satius Holding, Inc. (Satius) appeals decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (1) rejecting claim 1 of U.S. 2 IN RE SATIUS HOLDING, INC. Patent No. 6,711,385 on obviousness grounds in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, and (2) denying Satius’ request for rehearing. Because we conclude claim 1 of the ’385 patent is invalid in Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2025-1446 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2026), we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Fed. Cir.
October 1, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Truinject Corporation (Truinject) was founded not long before the events at issue here to develop a training system for aestheticians to practice dermal injections. The system, which Truinject called “Kate,” was envisioned to include an injectable mannequin head with lifelike skin as well as a syringe with fiber-optic functionality for tracking real-time needle depth, insertion angle, and position for display on a screen.
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
AND OPINION This is a “Schedule A” case in which a plaintiff sues defend- ants listed in a sealed attachment to the complaint for violating the plaintiff ’s intellectual- property rights. Here, defendants al- legedly make and sell patent-infringing goods from China via online-sales platforms. Plaintiff moves ex parte for an order freez- ing defendants ’ money held by third-party providers , temporarily restraining sales of the accused products , and allowing expedited discovery and email service of process .
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
This is a “Schedule A” case in which a plaintiff sues defend- ants listed in a sealed schedule attached to the complaint for vio- lating the plaintiff’s intellectual-property rights. Doc. 1. Defend- ants here allegedly sell patent-infringing goods from China via online-sales platforms. Doc. 9 at 7. Plaintiff moves ex parte for an order freezing defendants’ money held by the platforms, tempo- rarily restraining sales of the accused products, and allowing ex- pedited discovery and email service of process. Doc. 9.
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
ADOPTING Defendants each previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23 (Toyota Defendants); Dkt. No. 24 in Member Case No. 2:25- cv-001151 (Kia Defendants).) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 78), recommending denial of both Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. Nos. 82 (Toyota), 83 (Kia)), with no response filed.
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 100), recommending denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Because no objections have been filed 1 and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
Carvana previously filed a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, Alternatively, to Transfer to the District of Arizona. (Dkt. No. 12.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 67), recommending granting Carvana’s Motion in part. Specifically, he recommended transferring this case to the District of Arizona for the convenience of the parties and witnesses but otherwise denying the Motion. Because no objections have been filed , and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Recommendation is ADOPTED.
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
Defendant previously filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 48.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 92), recommending granting in part Defendant’s Motion t o Dismiss. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 96), with no response filed. After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion t o D ismiss, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Defendant’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and conclude…
E.D. Tex.
September 30, 2026
Order
Defendants Remote Asset Management Limited and Ram Tracking Acquisition Limited previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 41.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56), recommending denial of the Motion. Defendants have now filed Objections. (Dkt. No.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Precedential Opinion
ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) appeals a judg- ment of non -infringement the district court entered for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (to- gether, “Qualcomm”). Because there is no final judgment, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. We also deny ParkerVision’s request that on remand the case be reas- signed to a different judge. I The patent disputes between ParkerVision and Qual- comm have been ongoing for at least 15 years and have been before this court on several occasions.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
O R D E R Medical Components, Inc. (“MedComp”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the District of Utah to, inter alia, order all as- serted patent claims invalid for lack of novelty. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) oppose the petition. MedComp replies. Bard has opposed MedComp, and MedComp’s compet- itor, AngioDynamics, Inc., in multiple forums over Bard’s patents directed to systems and methods for identifying whether a venous access port is power injectable.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Precedential Opinion
ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) appeals a judg- ment of non-infringement the district court entered for Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (to- gether, “Qualcomm”). Because there is no final judgment, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. We also deny ParkerVision’s request that on remand the case be reas- signed to a different judge. I The patent disputes between ParkerVision and Qual- comm have been ongoing for at least 15 years and have been before this court on several occasions.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Precedential Opinion
Pen-Tech Associates, Inc. (Pen-Tech) appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Georgia denying Pen-Tech’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent power. Because the court’s order provides insufficient detail to permit meaningful re- view, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Epic Tech, LLC (Epic Tech) owns U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
WSOU Investments LLC appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board reversed the Examiner’s re- jection of claims 1–11, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 and entered a new ground of rejection based on obviousness in view of the same prior art reference. WSOU filed a response seeking “reopening of prosecution” under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2).
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Hongjia Wang appeals from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board determining all chal- lenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,007,583 are unpatent- able. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Hongjia Wang (“Wang”) owns U.S. Patent No. 11,007,583 (the “’583 patent”) 1, directed to a twist drill. An embodiment of Wang’s twist drill is shown in Figure 3, re- produced below. J.A. 174. 1 The ’583 patent refers to originally-issued U.S. Pa- tent No. 11,007,583 B3 as well as U.S. Patent No.
Fed. Cir.
September 30, 2026
Precedential Opinion
O R D E R Eli Lilly and Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH. IPSEN Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, Amgen Inc., Sanofi S.A., Johnson & Johnson Nagra USA, Inc., Dennis Burton, David Manuta and Bar- bara Ruskin moved for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae, which the court granted.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendants Lowe's Home Centers, LLC and Lowe's Companies, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. No. 53.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation that the Court deny the motion. ( Dkt. No. 124 ). Defendants Lowe's Home Centers, LLC and Lowe's Companies, Inc., along with Plaintiff Alpha Modus Corporation have since filed Objections. (Dkt. Nos.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendants Johnson Controls International, PLC and Senso rmatic Electronics, LLC. previously filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 78.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 126), recommending denial of the motion. Because no objections have been filed and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, it is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 78) is DENIED. .
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendant 7-E leven Inc. previously filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 52.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 125), recommending denial of the motion. Because no objections have been filed and for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, it is ADOPTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 52) is DENIED. .
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendant Nokia of America Corporation previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 16.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) recommending denial of the Motion. Nokia has no w filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 42.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss , the Report and Recommendation, and Nokia’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that th…
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
ADOPTING Defendant previously filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64), recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 66), with no response filed. After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion to Dismiss , the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Defendant’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes…
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendants SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., and DJI Europe B.V. previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 7.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35), recommending denial of the Motion. Defendants have now filed Objections. (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendant The Kroger Co. filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement Under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12(e). (Dkt. No. 37.) Magistrate Judge Payne recommended the Court deny the motion. (R. & R., Dkt. No. 54.) Defendant has filed Objections. (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendant Creative Realities, Inc., filed a Rule 12( b)(3) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Transfer to the Northern District of Minnesota Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Dkt. No. 23.) Magistrate Judge Payne r ecommended the Court deny the motion. (R. & R., Dkt. No. 53.) He also recommended denying as moot Dkt. No. 10 in member case No. 2:25-CV-00931- JRG-RSP, which is an identical motion filed after the Court ’s Consolidat ion Order. ( Id. at 6.) Defendant has filed Objections. (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court are Defendants BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s LLC’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 50), Defendant Williams-Sonoma, Inc.’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 52), Defendants Capital One Financial Corporation’s and Capital One, N.A.’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 54), Defendant Dillard’s, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 55), and Mavis Tire Express Services Corp.’s Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 58) (collectively the “Motions”).
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC dba VIV ATO TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff, De fendant. § § § § § § Case No. 2:25-CV-00697-JRG-RSP v. § § ( Lead Case) T-MOBILE USA, INC., § ORDE R Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Verizon Communications, Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Order
Defendants Fossil Group, Inc., and Fossil Stores I, Inc., (together, “Fossil”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 11) and a related Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. No. 17). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 53), recommending denial of the Motion to Dismiss and denial without prejudice of the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Fossil has now filed Objections to the recommendation concerning the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 29, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above- captioned case on July 21, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff” or “ WAG”) and Defendant Technius Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Technius”) (collectively, the “Parties”) in the above-captioned matter (Dkt. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 85, 86) .
E.D. Tex.
September 28, 2026
Order
Defendants Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., and various other foreign Intuitive entities m ove to dismiss Plaintiff Axcess Instruments IP Holding Company’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. (Dkt. No. 17.) Magistrate Judge Payne recommended the Court grant the motion in part. (R. & R., Dkt. No.
E.D. Tex.
September 25, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendant Recreational Equipment, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 13.) Having considered the Motion and related briefing, t he Court finds that the portion of Defendant’s Motion seeking to dismiss pre-suit damages should be GRANTED. The Court, however, also finds that the remainder of Defendant’s Motion should be DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Induction Devices LLC sued Defendant Recreational Equipment, Inc., accusing it of infringing five patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
E.D. Tex.
September 25, 2026
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101 (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants The Cigna Group, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. (together, “Cigna”). (Dkt. No. 33). In the Motion, Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiff Damaka, Inc.’s (“Damaka”) Complaint pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Id. at 1). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On May 30, 2025, Damaka filed suit against Cigna alleging infringement of U.S.
E.D. Tex.
September 25, 2026
Order
Uber Technologies, Inc., (“Uber”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Improper Venue and Failure to State a Claim. (Dkt. No. 40.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report an d Recommendation (Dkt. No . 8 4), recommending that the Motion be granted and that the above-captio ned case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Yillio, Inc., (“Yillio”) has since filed Objections (Dkt. No . 9 1), with Uber filing a Response (Dkt. No. 92).
E.D. Tex.
September 25, 2026
Order
Plaintiffs each previously filed Motions to Dismiss Defendants’ Amended Counterclaims Seven and Eight and Motions to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims Seven and Eight. (Dkt. Nos. 37, 43, 18, 34.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 66) , recommending granting of Plaintiffs’ Motions to Dismiss Defendants’ Amended Counterclaims Seven and Eight, and finding as moot Dismiss Defendants’ Motions to Defendant’s Counterclaims Seven and Eight.
E.D. Tex.
September 25, 2026
Order
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 21. After Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that, among other things, added Defendants Uber Freight Holding Corporation and Uber Freight US LLC, Dkt. No. 58, all Defendants supplemented the Motion with additional briefing, Dkt. No. 62- 1. Magistrate Judge Payne recommended the Court grant the Motion in part. See R. & R, Dkt. No. 305.
Fed. Cir.
September 25, 2026
Nonprecedential Opinion
Zentian Ltd. (“Zentian”) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) determining all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,062,377 (“the ’377 patent”) unpatenta- ble for obviousness. We affirm. BACKGROUND I The ’377 patent relates to speech-recognition systems. It describes dividing an audio input into time frames, and then, for each time frame, converting the audio signal into a “feature vector.” ’377 patent col. 12 ll. 50–57.
Showing the 100 most recent of 12,369 opinions (current through October 23, 2026). Browse the complete archive by year, or use the filters above (JavaScript required).