Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 2025

  • Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

    A license used to show objective indicia of nonobviousness does not require a showing of nexus with respect to the specific claims at issue, only to the patent as a whole.  To establish nexus, a particular patent does not need to be the only patent being licensed.

  • United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.

    When determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea for Section 101 analysis, the focus is on the character of the claim as a whole rather than the specification to determine eligibility. 

  • Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.

    Enablement analysis under Section 112 is distinct from enablement analysis for a prior art reference under Section 102.  Non-working examples may be sufficient to enable a prior art reference as long as undue experimentation would not have been required to disclose the claimed feature.

  • Dolby Lab’ys Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC

    The AIA does not create an informational right to know the identity of all real parties in interest in an IPR proceeding, such that the PTAB’s refusal to adjudicate this issue constitutes an injury in fact to confer Article III standing.

  • Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.

    Claim construction may be performed implicitly when interpreting inherent disclosure of a prior art reference if the interpretation establishes the scope and meaning of a claim.

  • Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.

    A plaintiff must have a commercial interest to bring an opposition to the registration of a trademark for being descriptive or generic, merely being a consumer is not sufficient to confer standing. 

  • EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (en banc)

    A court plays a gatekeeping role to ensure that expert testimony on patent damages is only admissible if the testimony is based on sufficient factual evidence and reliable methodology.  When relevant evidence is contrary to a critical fact on which the expert relied, the expert’s testimony is not admissible.

  • Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.

    For conception, an idea must be in sufficiently final form such that only exercise of ordinary skill remains to reduce the idea to practice without extensive research or experimentation.  Evidence of both the inventor’s experimentation and third-party experimentation should be considered to determine whether the idea was able to be reduced to practice using only…