Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

IQE, PLC v. Newport Fab, LLC, Appeal No. 2024-1124 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

Our Case of the Week this week is barely a patent case.  It is largely a case involving alleged trade secrets misappropriation in the semiconductor manufacturing space.  But the case raises procedural issues concerning the final judgment rule, the collateral order doctrine, and the First Amendment privilege to file patent applications.

IQE shared Information with defendants (referred to as “Tower” in the opinion) under an NDA in the aid of a potential collaboration.  Around the same time,  Tower filed patent applications that related to the subject matter of the information that was shared.  In addition to a list of state and federal causes of action relating to the alleged theft of trade secrets, IQE also included a claim for correction of inventorship on the patents.  Many of the state law claims concerned the filing of the patent application.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, Appeal Nos. 2024-1231, -1359 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2025)

In a patent case involving fastener-less fence assemblies, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment of no indefiniteness and non-infringement.  Patentee Barrette claims fencing assemblies using pivoting, sliding connectors with integral “bosses” that allow fast, fastener-less installation.  During prosecution, Barrette had distinguished its designs from prior art using separate pivot pins, which it argued made installation faster and simpler compared to the screw/bolt couplings used previously.  The court construed certain terms (“boss,” “projection,” and “nub”) to implicate integral, fastener-less structures, based on the patents’ language and history.   Barrette conceded it couldn’t prove infringement under the court’s constructions, and after the court rejected defendant Fortress’s indefiniteness arguments on terms like “sliding” and “causes,” Fortress dropped its invalidity claims.  Both parties appealed the court’s subsequent entry of judgment...

Inland Diamond Products Co. v. Cherry Optical Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1106 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

In an appeal from summary judgment finding asserted patent claims invalid as obvious, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The lawsuit concerns alleged infringement of claims in Inland Diamond’s patents directed to eyeglass lenses. At summary judgment, the district court relied on factual findings in inter partes review decisions concerning the asserted claims to find issue preclusion and obviousness. The Federal Circuit found that the court erred in its application of issue preclusion, because the PTAB decisions regarding unpatentability applied a less demanding standard that the standard required in district court. Citing two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit explained that the PTAB’s findings of fact, which apply the lower standard of proof of a preponderance of evidence, do not have an issue preclusive effect in district court proceedings where the facts must be proven under the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence...

Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ITC, Appeal No. 2023-1769 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, Appeal No. 2024-1958 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

In a pair of appeals involving U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268 directed to “demand response” technology in power grids, the Federal Circuit held that a contested ownership question did not deprive purported patentee Causam of the Article III standing necessary to pursue its appeals.  One appeal was from an inter partes review in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had agreed with petitioner ecobee that all challenged claims were invalid as obvious, and the other was from a Section 337 investigation in which the ITC had found Causam did not own the patent and that it was not infringed by a respondent.  The Federal Circuit found that Causam in fact owned the ’268 patent, but also affirmed the PTAB’s finding of invalidity, and thus dismissed the ITC appeal as moot...

Brita LP v. ITC, Appeal No. 2024-1098 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

In an appeal from the International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s findings that Brita LP’s patent covering its “gravity” water filters is invalid for lack of written description and lack of enablement...

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributors:

Elizabeth Graves, Associate

Brittani Gambrell, Associate

Jason Evans, Associate