CAFC News Brief

BPI Sports v. ThermoLife, decided June 16, 2025

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's final judgment of false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under state law against ThermoLife International LLC, Ronald L. Kramer, and Muscle Beach Nutrition LLC (collectively, "Appellants" or "defendants"). The appellate court found that BPI Sports, LLC ("BPI" or "plaintiff") failed to prove the "literal falsity" element of its false advertising claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's sanctions order against the Appellants regarding attorneys' fees, stemming from Mr. Kramer's bad-faith creation of a backdated license agreement and subsequent discovery obstruction. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/bpi-sports-v-thermolife-decided-june-16-2025
 

Federal Circuit May 2025 Decisions

eligibility (Section 101), damages, infringement analysis, and IPR estoppel. These cases provide valuable guidance on the court's current thinking and strategic considerations for practitioners. Key takeaways include the paramount importance of the intrinsic record in claim construction, the continued challenges in establishing patent eligibility for software-related inventions, strict scrutiny of damages expert methodologies, the limitations of Section 271(e) remedies, and the careful delineation of IPR estoppel. Written summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/federal-circuit-may-2025-decisions
 

USAA v. PNC Bank N.A., decided June 12, 2025

This case concerns the patent eligibility of United Services Automobile Association's (USAA) mobile check deposit technology, specifically U.S. Patent No. 10,402,638 ('638 patent). The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's finding of patent eligibility, concluding that the asserted claim (claim 20 of the '638 patent) is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as defined by the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l framework. The court held that merely implementing conventional banking processes (like reviewing, recognizing, error-checking, and storing check data) on a generic handheld mobile device, even with features like real-time error checking and OCR, does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/usaa-v-pnc-bank-n-a-decided-june-12-2025

Mitek v. USAA, decided June 12, 2025

Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) appealed the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action. This marks the second time this case has been before the Federal Circuit. In Mitek I (2022), the court vacated the initial dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again dismissed the action, finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, exercising its discretion to decline jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's dismissal. Case Summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/mitek-v-usaa-decided-june-12-2025

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., decided June 9, 2025

This case involves an appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM Radio Inc. (SXM), which found that Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.'s (Fraunhofer) patent infringement claims were barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether SXM relied on Fraunhofer's alleged misleading conduct. While the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court that Fraunhofer's five-year silence constituted misleading conduct and that SXM would suffer prejudice if Fraunhofer's claims were allowed to proceed (assuming reliance), the critical element of reliance was not indisputably established on the record. The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, including consideration of the parties' remaining summary judgment motions. Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/fraunhofer-gesellschaft-zur-f%C3%B6rderung-der-angewandten-forschung-e-v-v-sirius-xm-radio-inc-decide

Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., decided June 9, 2025

The appeal centers on a decision from the District Court for the District of Delaware concerning the validity of a patent claim under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). The court affirms the lower court's ruling, finding that claim 5 of one patent cannot be used as an ODP reference to invalidate claim 26 of another, citing a recent controlling decision in a similar case. The opinion was decided on June 9, 2025, and is noted as nonprecedential. Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-aurobindo-pharma-ltd-decided-june-9-2025

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna US, Inc., decided June 4, 2025

Alnylam alleged that Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, SPIKEVAX®, infringed on two of Alnylam's patents regarding cationic lipids used in mRNA delivery. The core issue on appeal is the claim construction of the term "branched alkyl" as it relates to a specific carbon atom's bonding within the lipid structure. The court analyzes the patent specification and prosecution history to determine if Alnylam acted as its own lexicographer in defining the term and if any exception to that definition was "otherwise specified" in the asserted claims. Ultimately, the court affirms the district court's construction, which required the carbon atom to be bound to at least three other carbon atoms.  Read the full case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/alnylam-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-moderna-inc-modernatx-inc-moderna-us-inc-decided-june-4-2

Acufloor, LLC v_ EvenTile, Inc_, Forpac, LLC, decided May 28, 2025

The case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Acufloor against EvenTile and FORPAC regarding two of Acufloor's patents related to tile leveling devices. The appeal specifically addresses challenges to the district court's construction of two claim terms. The Federal Circuit modified one claim construction, rejected the other, vacated the judgment of non-infringement, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read the case summary here: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/acufloor-llc-v-eventile-inc-forpac-llc-decided-may-28-2025

Stylwan IP Holding, LLC v. Stress Engineering Services, Inc., decided May 27, 2025

This nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion addresses an appeal from Stylwan IP Holding, LLC against Stress Engineering Services, Inc. following a judgment of noninfringement by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The dispute centers on Stylwan's six patents related to non-destructive systems for assessing material integrity, particularly in industrial settings like pipelines. The core issue on appeal involves the district court's construction of certain claim terms, specifically the "program limitations," which Stylwan argued were too narrow by incorporating specific mathematical equations and autonomous functionality described in the patent embodiments. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction, concluding that the patent's intrinsic evidence supports the inclusion of both the autonomous functionality and the specific "identifier equations." Because this claim construction was upheld, the court also affirmed the noninfringement judgment and did not need to address other issues raised, such as Stress Engineering Services' cross-appeal regarding patent eligibility. Case summary: https://www.cafcnewsbriefs.com/post/stylwan-ip-holding-llc-v-stress-engineering-services-inc-decided-may-27-2025

EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, decided May 21, 2025

The primary focus in this case is on whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing EcoFactor's damages expert to testify based on insufficient facts or data regarding prior lump-sum licenses, which the expert argued demonstrated an established per-unit royalty rate. The majority opinion reverses the district court's denial of Google's motion for a new trial on damages, finding the expert's testimony unreliable, while reinstating portions of a prior panel opinion affirming the denial of non-infringement and summary judgment motions. Concurring and dissenting opinions highlight disagreements on whether the record evidence supports the expert's reliance on the prior licenses and whether the district court's actions constituted an abuse of discretion.