Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-2118 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2026)

In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reviewed expert damages testimony en route to affirming a $42.5 million reasonable royalty award on appellant Polygroup’s infringing artificial Christmas trees.  The reviewing panel provided continued guidance on district courts’ gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as pertains to patent damages, following its 2025 en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (our write-up here).

The case involved Willis Electric’s U.S. Patent No. 8,454,186, which is directed to pre-lit artificial trees with trunk sections that electrically connect to each other at any rotational orientation as they are assembled, as opposed to prior art trees that required manually making electrical connections after the initial assembly.  After a series of inter partes review challenges, the only claim remaining at trial was dependent claim 15, which depended from an independent claim 10 that had been found unpatentable as obvious by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  Certain issues on appeal involved questions of apportionment as between the features of claim 10—which recited making electrical connections during assembly independent of rotational orientation—and claim 15’s specific recital of using coaxial barrel connectors for this purpose.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1408 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2026)

In an appeal from a summary judgment decision finding claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Federal Circuit reversed.  At issue were claims in a patent titled “Method of Detecting and/or Identifying Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) Sequences and Isolating Novel Sequences Identified Thereby.”  The claims are directed to genetically engineered host cells that contain adeno-associated virus rh.10 sequences.  In essence, a portion of a naturally-occurring virus is inserted into cultured cells.  The question presented was whether this invention was eligible for patenting, or was not eligible for patenting as a natural phenomenon.  The Court reviewed the history of cases relevant to the natural phenomenon exception to patentability, including Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948), and Assn. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics., Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), and concluded that Regenxbio’s claims were more like those found admissible in Charkrabarty than the claims found ineligible in Funk Brothers and Myriad.

The full opinion can be found here.

Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corporation, Appeal No. 2024-1686 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2026)

In a case concerning game controllers for Sony’s Playstation 3 and 4 systems, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement for Sony on appellant GET’s infringement claim seeking $500 million in damages.  GET appealed the District of Delaware’s decision that GET failed to show that claimed and accused structures in the controllers were equivalent for purposes of an “encoding means” limitation in GET’s U.S. Patent No. 6,219,730.

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributor:

Julia Davis, Associate