Federal Circuit Cases

Subscribe to Federal Circuit Cases via RSS

The Federal Circuit recently issued a nonprecedential order denying IOENGINE, LLC’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC (No. 2023-1367). IOENGINE sought further review of the court’s earlier decision on the boundaries of IPR estoppel, but the court declined to revisit the issue. The order marks the close of Federal Circuit review for this phase of a high-profile patent dispute and confirms the boundaries on IPR estoppel set by the Federal Circuit.Continue Reading Final Word on IPR Estoppel: Rehearing Denied in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403.Continue Reading Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars

Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity in favor of the patent owner, Super Lighting, finding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding CH’s relevant evidence pertaining to establishing the on-sale bar. As a result, the case was remanded for a new trial on validity of the patents.Continue Reading Erroneous Exclusion of On-Sale Bar Evidence: Federal Circuit Revives Invalidity Challenge in Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Patent Dispute

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed.

Background

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively, “Janssen”) market and sell Invega Sustenna, an extended-release intramuscular injectable formulation of paliperidone palmitate used to treat schizophrenia. Janssen sued Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ’906 Patent), after Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of Invega Sustenna. The ’906 Patent covers specific dosing regimens for Invega Sustenna.

Following two bench trials and a prior Federal Circuit review, the only remaining issue was Teva’s obviousness challenge to the ’906 Patent.Continue Reading Claiming A Range, Watch Out For The Presumption Of Obviousness

In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC, the Federal Circuit held that it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review a decision by the district court in the Southern District of New York not to modify an arbitral award of patent royalties. Though the Appellant, Accorda Therapeutics, Inc., presented a first ground to modify the arbitral award based in patent law, its presentation of a second and alternative ground based on contract law effectively undermined the Federal Circuit’s appellate jurisdiction.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Denies Appellate Jurisdiction Based on Alternative Ground for Relief

This case[1] involves an appeal from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Regeneron) efforts to prevent defendants from marketing biosimilar versions of EYLEA®, a drug used to treat eye diseases, by asserting patent infringement. In particular, the Federal Circuit addressed issues of personal jurisdiction, preliminary injunctions, and patent validity.Continue Reading Biopharmaceutical Patent Litigation: Regeneron’s Defense Against Biosimilar Launches