Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 2025

  • Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC

    Untimely expert testimony is only allowable when there is a showing that the failure to disclose was either substantially justified or harmless.

  • HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.

    Extrinsic evidence may only be used to assist with a proper understanding of a disputed claim limitation and should not be used for claim construction when it conflicts with the specification, claims, and prosecution history for the disputed claim limitation.

  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    For non-obviousness type double patenting, the fact that one patent has a broad claim that encompasses a narrower claim in a second patent does not automatically constitute double patenting.

  • Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

    The PTAB has jurisdiction over an IPR that is brought against an already expired patent.

  • Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp.

    The “substantially the same way” comparison to find equivalence to a means plus function limitation should focus on the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and not on the unclaimed, individual components of that structure.

  • Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

    A published patent application is prior art in an IPR proceeding as of the application’s filing date.  Therefore, a reference may be prior art for the purposes of an IPR even if it was published after the priority date of the patent being reviewed.

  • BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC

    The determination of whether federal patent law preempts a state law cause of action is based on the state law claim as pled, not on a comparison of the required elements of the state law claim to the objectives embodied by federal patent law.

  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.

    Written description and enablement analysis should focus on what is claimed in the patent. For enablement, later-existing state of the art cannot be used to invalidate a patent that was enabled for what was claimed at the time of filing.