Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025)

In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a trial between Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and its North American affiliate Obert, Inc. (collectively, “Super Lighting”) and CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Elliott Electric Supply, Inc., and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co., Ltd. (collectively, “CH Lighting”) for infringement of Super Lighting’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125; 10,352,540; and 9,939,140, which relate generally to light-emitting diode (“LED”) tube lamps.  Of particular note, the Court expanded on its recent en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—which concerned the reliability of expert damages testimony in patent cases—and remanded with instructions to observe its new guidance therein.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)

In a precedential order, the full Federal Circuit declined to hear this case en banc.  We wrote the case up as our Case of the Week in February this year, when the panel decision issued.  See here.  The issue was the collateral estoppel effect of a decision in an inter partes review on other, patentably indistinct claims.  The panel decided that collateral estoppel did not apply, given the different burdens of proof as between inter partes review (preponderance of the evidence) and district court proceedings (clear and convincing evidence).  The full Federal Circuit declined to review the matter en banc.  Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, filed an opinion concurring in the decision.  Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the full court should have reheard the matter.

The opinion can be found here.

FMC Corporation v. Sharda USA, LLC, Appeal No. 2024-2335 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)

In this appeal involving certain insecticide patents owned by FMC Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.  The Court’s opinion turned largely on interpretation of the term “composition” in the asserted claims, which the district court had construed to be limited to “stable” compositions based on disclosures in the patents’ parent application, as well as in a sister application claiming priority to that same parent.  However, those disclosures did not appear in the specifications of the asserted patents themselves—in those patents, every disclosure emphasizing a “stable composition” had been removed.  The Federal Circuit found that a skilled artisan would assign meaning to that progression, and would understand that as used in the asserted patents, the patentee did not intend for the term “composition” to be limited to stable compositions.

The Federal Circuit accordingly found that the district court erred in its claim construction, and thus erred in analyzing Sharda’s anticipation and obviousness challenges.  Among other things, the Court further suggested that the district court applied the wrong standard in rejecting those challenges, emphasizing that at the preliminary injunction stage, a defendant need only show a “substantial question of invalidity,” which the patentee must then show it is more likely than not to prevail on for preliminary relief to issue.  The Federal Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The opinion can be found here.

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributors:

Mario E. Delegato, Associate