Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 25-1058 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-1058
Decided
April 10, 2026
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

SENTIENT SENSORS LLC,

Appellant

v.

XILINX, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,

Appellees

2025-1058

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023-00195.

JUDGMENT

ANDREW COCHRAN, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by GERALD J. FLATTMANN, JR.

JEFFREY SHNEIDMAN, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA, argued for appellees. Also represented by KENNETH WAYNE DARBY, DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Austin, TX; JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Minneapolis, MN.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

cuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

April 10, 2026

Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 25-1058 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-25-1058-20260410
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1058-20260410

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.