Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-2043, -2233, -2326 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025)

This week’s Case of the Week includes a potpourri of issues following a jury trial and issuance of a permanent injunction against Evenflo based on patents directed to child car seats.  The Federal Circuit reversed a finding of infringement as to a certain family of products, affirmed the infringement findings in other respects, reversed the issuance of a permanent injunction, and remanded for a new trial on willfulness.  Judge Reyna issued a dissent on the latter issue.

Wonderland asserted two patents against two different families of Evenflo child seats.  A jury found that Evenflo’s 4-in-1 seats and 3-in-1 seats infringe Wonderland’s patents.  After trial, the district court granted Wonderland’s motion for a permanent injunction.  Although Wonderland only sought a permanent injunction in relation to one of the patents, the district court enjoined activities relating to both patents.  The parties cross-appealed.

LEARN MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, Appeal Nos. 2023-2007, -2095 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2025)

On review of what might be called a “troll toll,” the Federal Circuit dismissed Longhorn IP’s interlocutory appeal from the District of Idaho’s imposition of an $8 million bond under Idaho’s “Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act,” Idaho Code §§ 48-1701 et seq.  The Act prohibits bad faith infringement assertions, and upon finding a “reasonable likelihood” of bad faith, requires the patent claimant to post a bond sufficient to cover the alleged infringer’s costs of defense and any potential penalties under the Act.  The Federal Circuit has found similar state laws pre-empted by federal patent law to the extent they may impact good faith infringement claims, which Longhorn argued was the case here.  However, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction over Longhorn’s appeal because the lower court’s bond order was not a final judgment, and because Longhorn otherwise was unable to show that the order was “injunctive” in nature; that it was an appealable collateral order; or that it was subject to mandamus relief.  In rejecting Longhorn’s arguments, the Court relied repeatedly on the fact that the Act permits waiver of the bond upon a showing that the patentee holds assets sufficient to cover the potential costs, and that Longhorn had neither attempted to make that showing nor adduced evidence that it could not.  In part because Longhorn had not shown that immediate appeal was its only avenue for relief, the Federal Circuit found it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed.

The opinion can be found here.

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder