CAFC News Brief

SME Steel Contractors, Inc. v. Seismic Bracing Company, LLC, decided July 23, 2025

This nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion details the affirmation of a district court's summary judgment in favor of Seismic Bracing Co., LLC and Andrew Hinchman against SME Steel Contractors, Inc. and Core-Brace, LLC. The case involved multiple claims brought by SME Steel, including patent infringement related to buckling-restrained braces (BRBs), false advertising and false association under the Lanham Act, and copyright infringement concerning technical drawings. The appeals court upheld the lower court's finding that Seismic Bracing's BRBs did not infringe the patent due to the absence of a required "air gap," and that SME Steel failed to establish causal connection for injury in its Lanham Act claims or nexus for profits in its copyright claim, ultimately affirming the summary judgment on all challenged aspects. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/sme-steel-contractors-inc-v-seismic-bracing-company-llc-decided-july-23-2025

Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve, LLC, decided July 18, 2025

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 8,900,294, owned by Colibri, which describes a method for implanting artificial heart valves with a "do-over" or recapture mechanism. Colibri accused Medtronic of inducing infringement of this patent through the use of Medtronic's "Evolut" heart valve products. The court ultimately reversed a lower court's decision, ruling that prosecution history estoppel prevented Colibri from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to the cancellation of a related claim during the patent's prosecution. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/colibri-heart-valve-llc-v-medtronic-corevalve-llc-decided-july-18-2025

Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC decided July 17, 2025

This case involves a dispute between Top Brand LLC ("Top Brand") and Cozy Comfort Company LLC ("Cozy Comfort"), competitors in the market for oversized hooded sweatshirts/wearable blankets. Cozy Comfort accused Top Brand of infringing its U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 (the “D788 patent”) and two trademarks for “THE COMFY.” A jury initially found in favor of Cozy Comfort on both patent and trademark infringement, awarding significant damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) for Top Brand on both the design patent and trademark infringement claims. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/top-brand-llc-v-cozy-comfort-company-llc-decided-july-17-2025

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., decided July 8, 2025

This patent infringement case between Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was consolidated with a similar case against Mylan Laboratories Ltd. The core of the dispute centers on Janssen's U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, which covers dosing regimens for long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications. The appeal specifically addresses the District Court's finding that Teva failed to prove the patent invalid for obviousness, particularly regarding the unequal, decreasing loading doses and renal impairment dosage adjustments outlined in the patent claims. The appellate court affirms the lower court's decision, concluding that Teva did not provide clear and convincing evidence to establish obviousness. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/janssen-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-decided-july-8-2025

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., decided July 7, 2025

Egenera alleged that Cisco's Unified Computing System (UCS) infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, which pertains to automated deployment of virtual processing networks. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decisions, including the summary judgment of noninfringement for claims 1 and 5, and the denial of Egenera's post-trial motions regarding claims 3 and 7. Key issues involved the construction of patent claim terms like "computer processor" and "emulate Ethernet functionality," and the sufficiency of evidence presented by Egenera to prove infringement. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/egenera-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-decided-july-7-2025

Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., decided June 30, 2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal in the case of Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. The core issue revolves around patent infringement, specifically concerning Crown's double seaming technology used in beverage cans. The district court had previously ruled that certain claims of Crown's patents were invalid due to indefiniteness, meaning the patent claims were not clear enough to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that different methods for measuring a key claimed angle in the patent led to materially different results, thus rendering the claims indefinite.  See the case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/ball-metal-beverage-container-corporation-v-crown-packaging-technology-inc-decided-june-30-2025

Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Technologies LLC, decided Jun 27, 2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details an appeal by Quartz Auto Technologies LLC against Lyft, Inc. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of specific claim terms in two of Quartz's patents, the ’871 patent concerning remote automobile monitoring and correction, and the ’215 patent on managing information technology (IT) devices. The dispute stems from a prior District Court for the Northern District of California ruling that construed these terms, leading Lyft and Quartz to stipulate to non-infringement based on that construction. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's claim constructions, concluding that the disputed terms are limited to automobile-based defects for the ’871 patent and to problems within IT devices for the ’215 patent, thus upholding the non-infringement judgment in favor of Lyft. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/lyft-inc-v-quartz-auto-technologies-llc-decided-jun-27-2025

Larry Golden v. Google LLC, decided June 25, 2025

This nonprecedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit details a patent infringement appeal brought by Larry Golden against Google LLC. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Golden's amended complaint, which alleged Google infringed his patents related to a chemical/biological/radiological detector unit with a disabling locking system through its Pixel smartphones. The court found Golden's claims of direct, indirect, willful, and joint infringement failed because his theories required post-sale modification of Google's products or lacked sufficient factual allegations regarding control in alleged joint infringement. Essentially, the court concluded that Golden did not plausibly demonstrate Google's products infringed his patents as sold. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/larry-golden-v-google-llc-decided-june-25-2025

DirectPacket Research, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., decided June 25, 2025

This case concerns the patent eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 7,773,588 B2 (the “’588 patent”), held by DirectPacket Research, Inc. ("directPacket"). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ’588 patent is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/directpacket-research-inc-v-polycom-inc-decided-june-25-2025

Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc, decided June 16, 2025

The core of the dispute involves Optis's claims that Apple infringed on five of its standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to LTE technology, used in iPhones, iPads, and Watches. The court vacated earlier judgments on infringement and damages, mandating a new trial due to a non-unanimous jury verdict on infringement and the improper inclusion of an Apple-Qualcomm settlement agreement as evidence for damages. Additionally, the court reversed previous rulings regarding the patent eligibility of certain claims and the interpretation of another claim, while affirming a different claim construction, ultimately remanding the case for further proceedings. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/optis-cellular-technology-llc-v-apple-inc-decided-june-16-2025