Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases

CASE OF THE WEEK

Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq LLC, Appeal No. 2024-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026)

Our Case of the Week concerns an invalidity finding over a piece of prior art that was on sale in the 1990s, and the patent owner’s attempt to avoid that finding through a variety of arguments. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions in all respects.

The patent in suit recited a technique for upgrading on board vehicle software in an engine’s onboard control unit. It turns out the claimed invention had been sold in 1996 by a third-party company. Defendant in this case took discovery concerning that third party system, including obtaining source code from the 1996 product, obtaining a new-in-the-box sample of that product, and taking a deposition of a corporate witness pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). That corporate witness joined the third-party company years after the product was sold, but apparently performed his reasonable investigation into the product before testifying.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Read the full summaries via the button below.

International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Robert Cornell, Appeal No. 2025-1580, -1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026)

The Federal Circuit decided consolidated appeals involving claims for trade secrets, counterfeiting, breach of contract, and inventorship arising from competing penile implant technologies. The court reversed denial of JMOL for the defendants on the trade secret and contract claims because plaintiffs’ four alleged trade secrets were generally known or not kept secret, and thus not protectable under California law or covered as confidential under the NDA at issue. This was also dispositive as to the inventorship claim, on which the Court held that the purported inventor’s asserted contributions were the same as other generally known ideas, and thus would not be able to constitute an inventive contribution. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JMOL of no patent invalidity for failure to name the true inventors. However, the Court affirmed denial of defendants’ JMOL on the trademark-based counterfeiting claim, finding there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s liability verdict.

Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, Appeal No. 2024-1094 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026)

The Federal Circuit reinstated a jury verdict against Eli Lilly for willful infringement of Teva’s patents on certain headache treatments, reversing the district court’s grant of JMOL for lack of written description or enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. In so holding, the reviewing panel collected and clarified precedent concerning “a well-known genus used as part of a different invention,” indicating a relaxed standard of disclosure for claims that recite use of a genus of compounds without being directed to that genus as the purported invention. The Court distinguished cases like Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021), in which it had prominently enforced Section 112 requirements against broad claims directed to a novel genus.

VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Appeal No. 2024-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026)

In one of the cases between VLSI and Intel, the Federal Circuit rescued VLSI’s claims from summary judgment, finding that a pretrial stipulation admitted sales of products in the United States, which was contrary to the district court’s finding on summary judgment. Interpreting the language of the pretrial stipulation as a contract, the Court found it could only be reasonably construed in one way. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s exclusion of a doctrine of equivalents theory, finding that a prosecution history disclaimer did not apply because a statement made during prosecution did not amount to clear and convincing disclaimer. Meanwhile, the Court affirmed the exclusion of certain damages expert testimony, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding those theories pursuant to the Northern District of California Local Patent Rules.

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder

Contributor:

Jason Evans