Earlier this week in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s determination that Tineco’s original wet/dry surface cleaning devices infringed Bissell’s patents and were properly subject to a limited exclusion order. But Tineco managed to stay one step ahead of the ban by redesigning its products after the investigation
In a recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit, the appellate court explained that words of approximation like “about” are not inherently definite or indefinite — but when a patentee fails to provide sufficient guidance as to the meaning of such terms, it can be fatal to the claims. More specifically, in Enviro Tech Chemical
In a significant decision for telecommunications patent law, a panel of the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc, vacating a summary judgment of patent eligibility for certain claims while affirming eligibility for others, and affirming the jury’s findings of infringement and damages. The April 28, 2026
A pending Federal Circuit decision may force licensing counsel to rethink one of the most routine provisions in patent settlement agreements — the licensee’s denial of infringement.
Patent settlement agreements usually contain a denial of liability by the defendant/licensee, e.g., “[l]icensee denies any infringement of the asserted patents.” For decades, this language has largely been
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC is a good example of the courts’ ability to correct obvious errors in patent claims through claim construction. Indeed, the panel’s reversal of the lower court’s ruling demonstrates that judicial correction of evident errors in patent claims — even when the error
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp. serves as a pointed reminder to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that it must maintain consistency across its DuPont factor analysis. While the appellate panel affirmed the TTAB’s finding that the parties’ services were highly similar, it vacated and remanded the
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation offers important guidance on what it means to be a “prevailing party” and the standards for awarding attorney fees, costs, and sanctions in patent litigation. This ruling, which vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the district court’s decisions, is
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent enforcement in the tech sector where technology typically evolves much faster than other industries. The case, which pitted two giants of the
The Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in In re Erik Brunetti has surely raised some eyebrows in the trademark community (and beyond), not just for its subject matter (the attempted registration of a certain provocative word, which we will refer to here as the “F-bomb” for sensitive eyes and ears, for various goods and services)
The Federal Circuit recently issued a significant decision in the ongoing patent litigation between Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) and Qiagen Sciences, LLC, reversing a Delaware district court’s judgment that had found Qiagen liable for infringement of Labcorp’s patents-at-issue. In doing so, it vacated the $4.7 million damages award against Qiagen and ordered the