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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Datonics, LLC, No. 26-1124 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 26-1124
Decided
February 13, 2026
Judge
Mayer, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

In Re DATONICS, LLC,

Appellant 2026-1124

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 17/401,052.

ON MOTION

Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Datonics, LLC appeals from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting certain patent application claims based on double patenting and patent eligibility. Stating that the Board erred in its analysis, ECF No. 9 at 2, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) moves without opposition to remand for further proceedings before the agency. Without drawing any conclusions regarding the merits of the appeal, the court agrees that remand here would preserve party and judicial resources. Accordingly,

22 IN RE DATONICS, LLC

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the USPTO for further consideration consistent with the motion and this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

February 13, 2026 Date ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 13, 2026

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

In re Datonics, LLC, No. 26-1124 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-26-1124-20260213
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1124-20260213

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.