https://patentcasewatch.com/ Patent opinions and orders from the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-2128-20260921 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-2128-20260921 Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT O R D E R On July 31, 2026, Massoud Heidary filed an appeal from the January 8, 2026 order of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Maryland dismissing his com- plaint. In response to this court’s order to show cause regarding timeliness, Amazon.com Inc. and Ring, LLC urge dismissal. Mr. Heidary submits a response, which this court construes as his opposition to dismissal. 2 HEIDARY v. AMAZON.COM INC. Motion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1766-20260921 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1766-20260921 Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT O R D E R Upon consideration of the joint motion to remand for further proceedings, stating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on a reference that was not prior art in reject- ing certain patent application claims, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for further consideration consistent with the motion and this order. 2 IN RE GOMEZ (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2353-20260921 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2353-20260921 Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT This is a cross-appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, concerning (1) the district court’s order staying and severing four counts of a five-count complaint, with each of Counts I–IV alleging direct infringement, (2) summary judgment of pa- tent eligibility, (3) summary judgment of no indirect in- fringement under the fifth count, and (4) subsequent dismissal of Counts I–IV in light of the summary judgment of no indirect infringement under Count V. § 101 EligibilitySummary JudgmentInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-01075-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-01075-0 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Rule 12(b) (6) Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Lee Hecht Harrison LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 22).1 Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Calibrate Networks LLC (“Plaintiff”) (together with Defendant, the “Parties”) filed the above-captioned case against Defendant on October 28, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. Motion to DismissInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_20-cv-00081-4 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_20-cv-00081-4 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants ’ Motion For Exceptional Case (Dkt. No. 270). In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff AlexSam Inc’s positions regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (the “’608 Patent”) warrant sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because they are “exceptional.” The Court having found that this case stands out among all the cases the Court has been assigned in more than 30 years, the motion is hereby GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. The Patent and this Litigation On March 18, 2020, AlexSam filed the present lawsuit. Attorneys' Fees https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-2022-20260918 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-2022-20260918 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NICOLE RICHARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS C. KALLISH, EVERYONE'S EARTH, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2026-2022 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 7:22-cv-09095-CS- VR, Senior Judge Cathy Seibel. Motion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01824-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01824-0 Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corpora- tion sued Fenix Diamonds LLC for infring ing two patents directed to methods for making lab -grown diamonds. The district court granted summary judgment of non -infringe- ment for both patents, and Carnegie and M7D appealed to this court. During the appeal, the parties entered a con- sent stipulation of dismissal and the action returned to the district court to address issues related to Fenix’s claim for attorney fees and expenses. Attorneys' FeesNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1900-20260917 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1900-20260917 Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Incept LLC (“Incept”) appeals the Patent Trial and Ap- peal Board’s decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/886,099 (“the ’099 application”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 103. Ex parte Bean, No. 2024-003619, 2024 WL 5193610, at *5–8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2024) (“Decision”); Ex parte Bean, No. 2024-003619, 2025 WL 1329066 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2025) (“Decision Denying Rehearing”). For the reasons be- low, we vacate and remand. I. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1804-20260917 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1804-20260917 Thu, 17 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Carnegie Institution of Washington and M7D Corpora- tion sued Fenix Diamonds LLC for infringing two patents directed to methods for making lab-grown diamonds. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringe- ment for both patents, and Carnegie and M7D appealed to this court. During the appeal, the parties entered a con- sent stipulation of dismissal and the action returned to the district court to address issues related to Fenix’s claim for attorney fees and expenses. Attorneys' FeesNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-4 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-4 Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court are two m otions: Defendant Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.’s (“Simon”) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ( Dkt. No. 444) and Defendant Blackhawk Network Inc.’s (“Blackhawk”) Motion for Fees and Sanctions (Dkt. No. 447). In the motions, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff AlexSam Inc’s positions regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (the “’608 Patent”) warrant sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, FED. R. CIV. P. Attorneys' FeesWillfulness https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00980-6 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00980-6 Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Pending before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Intellectual Ventures to Produce Documents and Answer American’s Interrogatories (Dkt. # 161) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case. Discovery https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1527-20260915 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1527-20260915 Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT (LOURIE, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 15, 2026 Date Rule 36 Affirmance https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1263-20260915 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1263-20260915 Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT (LOURIE, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 15, 2026 Date Rule 36 Affirmance https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1074-20260914 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1074-20260914 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Only a “patentee” may bring a civil action for patent in- fringement. 35 U.S.C. § 281. This case calls on us to again undertake the oftentimes complicated task of determining whether a license agreement conveyed a sufficient owner- ship interest to the licensee such that the agreement is tan- tamount to an assignment, thereby granting the licensee the right to maintain a lawsuit in its own name without joining the patent owner. Plaintiff-Appellant TexasLDPC Inc. License / ExhaustionInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1000-20260914 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1000-20260914 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Nine Energy Service, Inc. (“Nine”) appeals the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended final judgment ordering that (1) Nine had di- rectly infringed claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) Nine had induced in- fringement of claims 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 of the ’445 patent; (3) claims 28, 29, 36, 39, 50–52, and 55–57 (the “as- serted claims”) of the ’445 patent were not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (collec- tively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A. InfringementNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2379-20260914 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2379-20260914 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT TCO Group AS (“TCO”) appeals the United States Dis- trict Court for the Western District of Texas’s amended fi- nal judgment ordering that (1) TCO had induced infringement of claims 28 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”); (2) TCO committed con- tributory infringement of claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 pa- tent; (3) claims 28 and 29 of the ’445 patent are not invalid; and (4) NCS Multistage Inc. and NCS Multistage LLC (col- lectively, “NCS”) were entitled to damages. See J.A. 39–41. Induced InfringementInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1764-20260911 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1764-20260911 Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT (MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST, Circuit Judge, and BARKER, District Judge1). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 11, 2026 Date 1 Honorable J. Campbell Barker, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Rule 36 Affirmance https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1596-20260911 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1596-20260911 Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT (TARANTO, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 11, 2026 Date Rule 36 Affirmance https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1285-20260911 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1285-20260911 Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT AlterWAN, Inc. (“AlterWAN”) appeals from the stipu- lated final judgment of noninfringement of the U.S. Dis- trict Court for the District of Delaware favoring Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (to- gether, “Amazon”). AlterWAN challenges the district court’s claim-construction rulings, upon which the stipu- lated judgment rests, and the district court’s exclusion of AlterWAN’s damages expert. We affirm the district court’s claim constructions and thus do not reach the exclusion of AlterWAN’s expert. BACKGROUND U.S. Patent No. Claim ConstructionNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1696-20260911 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1696-20260911 Fri, 11 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Moskowitz Family LLC (“Moskowitz”) appeals from de- cisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Globus Medical, Inc.’s (“Globus”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, con- struing the term “universal,” and denying Moskowitz’s mo- tion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of infringement. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND I The spine has three major regions: the cervical, lum- bar, and thoracic. Non-InfringementClaim ConstructionSummary Judgment https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_26-cv-01251-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_26-cv-01251-0 Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT (CTO −12) On April 2, 2026, the Panel transferred 6 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3176, ECF No. 44 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, 85 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III. Venue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01140-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01140-1 Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Versata Software, LLC fka Trilogy Software, Inc.; Ver- sata Development Group, Inc. ; and Trilogy, LLC appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on damages for trade secret misappro- priation and breach of contract. For the reasons below, we vacate the district court’s judgment on trade secret dam- ages and remand for a new trial with instructions for the district court to consider two damages models it previously rejected. DamagesTrade SecretsJMOL / Post-Trial https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1542-20260910 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1542-20260910 Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT John Lewis Guymon Jr. appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir- ginia dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. For the reasons below, we affirm. I Mr. Guymon is the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,943,030, which claims a method for creating secure electronic documents that enable the protected exchange of information. Upon issuance, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded Mr. Guymon a patent term ad- justment (PTA) determination of 1,525 days pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Motion to DismissVenue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01078-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01078-2 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court are two Motions, Plaintiff’s M otion for Leave to S erve Supplemental Reports of D r. Martin G . Walker, and Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Withdraw its Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 178). Dkt. Nos. 183, 189. In the former Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to serve the supplemental report of its infringement expert, in light of updated representative products. Dkt. No. 183 at 1. In the latter Motion, Defendant seeks to withdraw its initial Motion to Strike New Infringement Opinions in the R ebuttal Expert Report of Dr . Summary JudgmentDaubert / Expert ChallengesInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00644-3 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00644-3 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion To Exclude the Supplemental Opinions of Plaintiff’s Experts (the “Motion”) file d by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., BambuLab Limited, BambuLab USA, Inc., Tuozhu Technology Limited, and BambuLab USA Inc. (collectively “Defendants” or “Bambu”). (Dkt. No. 404). In the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to strike the supplemental reports of Plaintiff Stratasys Inc. (“Plaintiff”)’s (together with Defendants, the “Parties”) expert witnesses, Dr. Gall, Dr. Osswald, and Mr. Kennedy. (Id. Daubert / Expert ChallengesDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00138-5 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00138-5 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendant Dental Direkt GmbH (“Defendant”)’s Motion To Exclude Improper Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Gary Fischman (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 189). In the Motion, Defendant ask the Court to strike the report of Plaintiff Tosoh Corporation (“Plaintiff”)’s (together with Defendants, the “Parties”) expert witness, Dr. Gary Fischman, based on the Court’s Memorandum Claim Construction Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. Daubert / Expert ChallengesClaim Construction https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1362-20260908 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1362-20260908 Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT ______________________ MEGAN S. WOODWORTH, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by FRANK C. CIMINO, JR.; WILLIAM HECTOR, San Francisco, CA. ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, Greenberg Traurig LLP, McLean, VA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by VIVIAN KUO, Washington, DC. ______________________ 2 VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC. v. PLATINUM OPTICS TECHNOLOGY INC. Before MOORE, Chief Judge, STOLL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE, District Judge.1 MOORE, District Judge. Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. Attorneys' Fees https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1005-20260903 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1005-20260903 Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Biofer S.p.A. appeals a judgment of non-infringement entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On appeal, Biofer challenges the claim construction on which the judgment rests. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. BACKGROUND On April 15, 2022, Biofer S.p.A. (“Biofer”) sued Vifor (International) AG (“Vifor”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,759,320 (“’320 patent”). Non-InfringementClaim Construction https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1159-20260902 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1159-20260902 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Mrs. Elaine Vieth and her husband, Dr. Reinhold W. Vieth, appeal the September 10, 2024 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining that claims 1 and 3–5 of the Vieths’ U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958 (“the ’958 patent”) are unpatentable. J.A. 1–108. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2240-20260902 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2240-20260902 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Netlist Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals from two consolidated fi- nal written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which together held unpatentable all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,060 (“’060 patent”) and 9,318,160 (“’160 patent”). We affirm. I A Netlist’s ’060 and ’160 patents generally relate to com- puter memory modules, such as the one depicted below. Appx10310. Some background about this technology is necessary to understand the parties’ dispute. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1859-20260902 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1859-20260902 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals two consolidated final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00996, 2023 WL 8525632 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) (“’918 Decision”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., No. IPR2022-00999, 2023 WL 8446338 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2023) (“’054 Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 11,016,918 (“’918 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1707-20260902 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-1707-20260902 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determin- ing all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 are unpatentable as obvious. For the following reasons, we af- firm. BACKGROUND Netlist owns U.S. Patent No. 10,949,339 (the “’339 pa- tent”). The ’339 patent is directed to computer memory sys- tems, and more specifically to “improving the performance and the memory capacity of . . . memory boards that in- clude dual in-line memory modules.” J.A. 109 at 1:18–23. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00781-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00781-0 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff MeshDynamics’ Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Webex Meetings Survivability (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 82.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is “ relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and is proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00138-4 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00138-4 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above -captioned case on May 27, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff Tosoh Corporation (“Tosoh”) and Defendant Dental Direkt GmbH (“Dental Direkt”) (together, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos. 90, 105, 114-19, 135, 163, 164.) This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions, MILs, and disputed exhibits as announced from the bench and read into the record, including additional instructions that were given to the Parties. Motions in LimineDaubert / Expert ChallengesSummary JudgmentMotion to Strike https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02280-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02280-0 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because th ose products were covered by a license . Summary JudgmentNon-InfringementInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01822-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01822-1 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT This patent infringement case raises issues of eligibil- ity, infringement, and damages and relates to communica- tion systems that use non-uniform constellations that have increased capacity compared to conventional, uniform con- stellations operating within a similar signal-to-noise ratio band. Constellation Designs, LLC sued LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics Ala- bama, Inc. § 101 EligibilityInfringementJMOL / Post-TrialDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1236-20260831 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1236-20260831 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharma- ceuticals, Inc. appeal the decision of the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Delaware holding that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 11,091,439, 11,091,440, 11,098,015, and 11,298,349, which are owned by Exelixis, Inc., are not invalid. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s finding that the as- serted claims of the ’439, ’440, and ’015 patents have ade- quate written description pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Written Description https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1083-20260831 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1083-20260831 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654 (the “’654 patent”) and 9,696,868 (the “’868 patent”), which relate to graphical user interfaces that allow a user to switch between applications by displaying images of applications in a three-dimensional space and, upon selection of an image, displaying the cor- responding application in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1022-20260831 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1022-20260831 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime3D”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 (the “’048 patent”), which relates to a graphical user interface that displays webpages as ob- jects in a three-dimensional space and, upon a user’s selec- tion of an object, displays the corresponding webpage in a two-dimensional space. Apple Inc. and Google LLC (to- gether, “Apple”) filed petitions for inter partes review chal- lenging claims 1-18 of the ’048 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. IPR / PTABInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2234-20260831 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-24-2234-20260831 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Evolved Wireless, LLC (Evolved) filed a patent in- fringement suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging Samsung’s products infringed U.S. Pa- tent No. RE46,679 (’679 patent). At the end of discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment of no infringement for Samsung’s products that used Qualcomm chips, because those products were covered by a license. Non-InfringementSummary JudgmentJMOL / Post-Trial https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00980-5 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00980-5 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Pending before the Court is Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC’s First Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12 (b)(1) (the “Motion”) (Dkt. #88). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case. Motion to DismissInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00887-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00887-1 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“ Defendant”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 83). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion and an affirmative finding that Plaintiff Edge Networking Systems LLC (“Edge”) has standing to assert the Asserted Patents1 in this case. (Dkt. No. 252). Defendant has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 255). Summary JudgmentInventorship https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-2145-20260828 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-2145-20260828 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT O R D E R Upon consideration of the parties’ responses to this court’s July 9, 2026 orders staying the above-captioned ap- peals and of DISH Network L.L.C. and DirecTV, LLC’s un- opposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal Nos. 2026- 1331 and 2026-1366, ENTROPIC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C. 3 IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The stay imposed by the July 9, 2026 orders is lifted. (2) The motion to dismiss is granted. Appeal Nos. 2026-1331, 2026-1366, and Appeal No. Motion to DismissIPR / PTAB https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1280-20260828 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1280-20260828 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT AML IP, LLC (“AML”) sued Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. and The Buckle, Inc. (“Appellees”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979 (“the ’979 patent”). Each Appellee moved to dismiss—for both (1) improper venue and (2) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, due to the ’979 patent’s claims being allegedly ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 The district court, in a single order, dismissed on both grounds. Venue / Transfer§ 101 EligibilityMotion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1006-20260828 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1006-20260828 Fri, 28 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT T Mobile US, Inc. and T Mobile USA, Inc. (collectively, T Mobile) and patent owner KAIFI LLC (KAIFI) settled a lawsu-it in which KAIFI al-leged that T Mobile infringed se-veral claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728 (’728 patent). At the time of settlement, an ex parte reex-amination (EPR) of the ’728 patent, which T Mobile had initiated, was pend- ing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Pa- tent Office). Under the s-ettlement agreement, T Mobile agreed to make an immediate payment to KAIFI for a cer- tain amount, which it did. Venue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_25-cv-01030-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_25-cv-01030-0 Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Pending before the Court is Defendants Vivint LLC and Vivint, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #7) (the “Motion”). Having considered the Motion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patent infringement case. On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Duke W. Zinser (“Plaintiff”) filed this action alleging that Defendants Vivint, LLC and Vivint, Inc. (collectively, “Vivint” or “Defendants”) has and continues to infringe one or more claim s of U.S. Motion to DismissInfringementInduced Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00762-0 Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT (CTO −1) On August 7, 2026, the Panel transferred 7 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See MDL No. 3190, ECF No. 64 (J.P.M.L. 2026). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been transferred to the Eastern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable James Rodney Gilstrap. Venue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00438-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00438-1 Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s (“ Plaintiff” or “Gamba”) Renewed Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend its Infringement Contentions (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 87.) In the Motion, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its infringement contentions for U.S. Patent No. 9,961,507 (the “’507 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,772,193 (the “’193 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,674,684 (the “’684 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents .”) (Id. Contentions https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00521-7 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00521-7 Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion for Permanent Injunction (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Barco Inc. and Barco NV (“Barco”) . (Dkt. No. 250.) Having considered the Motion, all related briefing, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Barco filed the above- captioned case against Defendants Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yealink”) on November 14, 2023. (Dkt. No. InjunctionInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1562-20260827 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-1562-20260827 Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 GMT 2 ASTELLAS PHARMA, INC. v. ASCENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. O R D E R Having “entered a settlement agreement that resolves all claims between them” in this matter, ECF No. 14 at 8, the parties jointly move to remand this appeal in light of the district court’s August 5, 2026 indicative ruling that it would partially vacate and modify its March 6, 2026 final judgment if this court remanded. General / Procedural