Cases

Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge Plager. Chen, Circuit Judge. In our previous decision in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. , we upheld the district court's judgment invalidating claims 1-4 and 7-15 of

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) appeals from four stipulated final judgment orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. 1 Each order granted: (1) final judgment of invalidity of claims 4-8, 11, 34, and 35 of U.S. Patent 6,034,652 (“the '652 patent”) and cla

*1186ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. No. 372.) Having considered 'the Parties’ briefing and all related papers, the Court GRANTS the motion. Background

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Case: 21-1864 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1864 ______________________ Appeal fro

Case: 21-1864 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1864 ______________________ Appeal fro

Case: 22-1925 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC, OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, UNWIRED PLANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellants v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellant

Case: 20-2044 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. APPLE INC., VISA INC., VISA U.S.A. INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2020-2044 ______________________ Appeal from the United

Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge When a system is changed and improved using computer technology that already exists, is that improvement patentable? This case raises that question. To decide whether ipDatatel, LLC infringed Alarm.com Incorporated's patents for home-security technology, the court must determine if the technology was patentable in the first place.

WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE *735This is a patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Epic IP LLC against defendant Backblaze, Inc. Before the Court is Backblaze's motion to dismiss the complaint based on patent ineligibility under

Case: 24-1669 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/09/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GOTV STREAMING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2024-1669, 2024-1744 ______________________ Appeals from

GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court after a hearing on the Motion for Claim Interpretation (Doc. 102) filed by the Defendant, Sunsight Instruments, Inc. ("Sunsight"), the opening claim construction brief (Doc. 103) filed by the Plaintiff, Multiwave Sensors, Inc. ("Multiwave"), and the responses in opposition (Doc. 108, 109) filed by both parties. I. Background

Lourie, Circuit Judge. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Jazz") appeals from six inter partes review ("IPR") decisions of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board"). 1 Collectively, the decisions held certain claims of Jazz's U.S. Patents 7,668,730 ("'730 patent"), 7

Case: 24-1822 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 04/28/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS ALABAMA, INC., Defendants-Appellants ______________________ 2024-1822 ______

Reyna, Circuit Judge. *1347 Iridescent Networks, Inc. sued AT & T Mobility, LLC and Ericsson Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ROY S. PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Alacritech, Inc. (Plaintiff) (Dkt. No. 181, filed on April 4, *8572017),1 the response of Tier 3, Inc., Sawis Communications Corp., CenturyLink Communications LLC, D

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HZNP MEDICINES LLC, HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2017-2149, 2017-2152, 2017-2153, 2017-2202, 2017-2203, 2017-2206 ______________________ Appeals from the U

*1122ORDER MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. I. SUMMARY This Order addresses a single remaining issue raised in Google Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,684,087 and 6,292,657 on Grounds of Indefiniteness (“Motion”) (dkt. no. 389). The Court previously resolved the Motion in part and directed a

COLM F. CONNOLLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *363Plaintiffs f'real Foods, LLC and Rich Products Corporation filed this lawsuit accusing Defendants Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. and Hershey Creamery Company of infringing four patents for commercial blenders: United States Patent Numbers 5,803,377 (the "#377 patent"), 7,144,150 (the "#150 patent"

Moore, Circuit Judge. Intellectual Ventures I LLC ("IV") appeals from a grant of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, and United States Cellular Corporation (collectively, "T-Mobile") have not infringed