Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2024-1072, -1125 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2025)

In this week’s Case of the Week, Rex Medical, L.P. (“Rex”) appeals from a decision out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware reducing a $10 million jury award to $1 in nominal damages. The district court awarded Rex nominal damages for infringement of Rex’s Patent No. 9,439,650 (the “’650 patent”) by Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., and Intuitive Surgical Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Intuitive”). The court found that the ‘650 patent was not invalid for lack of written description and that Intuitive directly infringed claim 6 of the ‘650 patent, but that a reduction of the jury’s damages award of $10 million to $1 was proper; the jury received insufficient evidence from which it could reasonably infer a proper royalty award for infringement of the ‘650 patent, or from which it could reasonably apportion the lump sum payment made in a comparable settlement agreement between Rex and a non-party, where that non-party licensed the ‘650 patent along with nine other U.S. patents, seven U.S. patent applications, and nineteen patents or applications from countries outside the United States. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court on all fronts.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Focus Products Group International v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1446, -1450, -2148, -2149 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025)

In a wide-ranging IP dispute between manufacturers and sellers of “hookless” shower curtains, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court’s $4 million damages and fees award following a bench trial.  The panel’s 45-page opinion reviewed various assignments of error from the two appellants—a seller and their supplier—covering patent, trademark, trade dress, and procedural issues...

READ MORE

U.S. Inventor, Inc. v. PTO, Appeal No. 2024-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)

In an appeal from a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the Federal Circuit affirmed.  U.S. Inventor, Inc. and National Small Business United sought a change in procedures concerning discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions before the Patent Office.  When the Patent Office declined to make the requested changes, the plaintiffs filed an action in district court under the Administrative Procedures Act.  The district court dismissed for lack of standing.  The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the organizations could not demonstrate they had standing under the standard for associational standing, which requires at least one member of the association to have standing.  The injury, the Court held, was too speculative, and dependent on the acts of third parties.  The Court distinguished Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1 (Fed. Cir. 2023), in which the Court found that Apple did have standing.  But in that case, Apple had established that it was a “repeat player and on a very large scale, as it has been sued for infringement on a regular basis, for many years, and Apple regularly petitions for an IPR of patent claims in such suits.”  The likelihood of injury to Apple was thus identifiable, but the plaintiffs in the instant suit could not identify any member that could demonstrate a non-speculative injury.

The opinion can be found here.

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributor:

Julia Davis