An inventor’s testimony of his/her invention date requires independent corroboration. But can that evidence come from a machine rather than a person? In Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1945 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2026), the Federal Circuit concluded that metadata automatically generated by Microsoft Word can independently corroborate an inventor’s testimony.
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Board decision canceling all but five challenged claims, which survived not on their merits, but because the petitioner failed to adequately argue they were unpatentable. Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Appeal 2025-1053 (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2026) (nonprecedential). Each surviving claim depends upon a base claim
In mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing mCom’s patent infringement complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, on the basis that the asserted claims of mCom’s U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508 (relating to electronic banking systems)
Last month, in Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal No. 2024‑1236 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2026), the Federal Circuit again addressed the reach of the statutory bar on its review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions to institute inter partes reviews. The case arose from Qualcomm’s IPR petition challenging a FedEx patent
In 2020, Apple and several other parties collectively sued the Patent Office in a U.S. district court in California. They alleged that guidance* the Director gave the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—on how, while parallel patent litigation was pending, to exercise the Director’s discretion to deny inter partes review petitions—violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly 5 U.S.C. § 706 (link). Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 20-CV-06128 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2024). Apple complained that the guidance led to too many discretionary denials of meritorious petitions and was otherwise also legally defective. When the lawsuit was filed, the Board made these institution decisions. Today, the Director does. The guidance is therefore largely meaningless unless the Director again delegates this task to the Board. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s rejection of Apple’s APA challenge. Apple Inc. v. Squires, Appeal 2024-1864 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).
Continue Reading The Propriety and Cost of Discretionary Denial
Last summer, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims in a pair of patents owned by Agilent Technologies claiming chemically modified CRISPR guide RNAs are unpatentable. Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp., 139 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The court agreed that an earlier published international patent application filed by Pioneer Hi‑Bred sufficiently described these guide RNAs and enabled at least one embodiment within the scope of the challenged claims. The decision highlights the application of the substantial-evidence standard for reviewing the Board’s factual findings, and reinforces the presumption that printed publications are enabled prior art.
Continue Reading The Power of Prophetic Disclosures
The Federal Circuit’s decision last fall in Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Appeals 2025‑1210, ‑1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Jan. 22, 2026) (link), offers important guidance on the meaning of disclosures “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e)—a word-pairing that often determines whether a reference qualifies as prior art during prosecution and in litigation (including in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings).* The court’s opinion not only affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusion of obviousness in these IPRs but also clarified the legal standard for inventive entity identity, drawing heavily on the CCPA’s decision in In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966).
Continue Reading The High Hurdles in Disqualifying Prior Art
Practitioners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are well-acquainted with the statutory bar on judicial review of institution decisions. But what happens when the Board defers—for more than a year—a decision to rehear its non-institution decision, waiting for the Federal Circuit to clarify claim construction in parallel litigation involving the same patent and same parties? In Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appeal 2024-1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (“EBS”), the Federal Circuit addressed this scenario, providing a practical reminder of the limits of appellate review and the Board’s procedural discretion.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Delay in Instituting IPRs Is Not Reviewable on Appeal
In Lynk Labs v. Samsung Electronics, the Federal Circuit determined that “a published patent application can be deemed prior art in an IPR as of the application’s filing date.” The Court affirmed the PTAB’s determination that challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 (the ’400 patent), which relates to light emitting diodes (LEDs), are
In a decision that underscores the importance of prior art in the context of AI patents, the PTAB recently issued a final decision in Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLC, IPR2023-01173 (PTAB January 3, 2025), invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Number 11,055,583 (the “’583 patent”). The case provides some insight into how