IP UPDATE

Not even a thread left: Single reference anticipation, missing claim limitation entitle defendant to JMOL

by Tyler Jackson | Aug 6, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a judgment of infringement, concluding that the asserted patent claims were anticipated by a single prior art reference and that the accused products did not satisfy a limitation under the district court’s claim construction. As a result, the Court concluded that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of both invalidity and noninfringement. Board of Regents of the University of Texas v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case Nos. 24-2062; -2063 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2026) (Taranto, Bryson, Cunningham, JJ.)

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas (UT) owns a patent directed to a composition containing at least one biodegradable polymer fiber that includes one or more dispersed therapeutic agents. The claimed invention may be used with commercially available stents to deliver drugs at the site where the stent is placed.

In 2017, UT sued Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), alleging that BSC’s drug-eluting coronary stent systems infringed UT’s patent. Following claim construction, the case proceeded to trial. The jury found that BSC willfully infringed the asserted claims and rejected BSC’s argument in its motion for JMOL that the claims were anticipated by a prior art reference known as Song. The jury awarded damages to UT. The district court subsequently set aside the willfulness finding as legally unsupported but otherwise upheld the verdict. BSC appealed the infringement and validity rulings, and UT cross-appealed the district court’s decision overturning the willfulness verdict.

The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment for UT, finding that BSC was entitled to JMOL that the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated and, independently, that BSC did not infringe.

Addressing anticipation, the Federal Circuit concluded that Song disclosed each limitation of the asserted independent claim. Song taught the claimed biodegradable polymer fiber and disclosed the claimed “second phase” limitation. The Court explained that Song’s noncontiguous drug phases satisfied the requirement for discrete drug-containing regions.

The asserted dependent claims added limitations expressed in Markush-group form. Because Song disclosed at least one member of each claimed Markush group, the Federal Circuit concluded that those claims were also anticipated. The Court further found that Song disclosed the claimed release of a drug at varying rates.

The Federal Circuit separately concluded that BSC was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement. Under the district court’s claim construction, the asserted claims required a “thread-like” structure. The Court determined that UT’s evidence did not establish the presence of such a structure in BSC’s accused stent coatings.

UT’s infringement theory relied on sections of the coating that had been artificially separated for purposes of analysis. The Federal Circuit concluded that no reasonable jury could characterize those artificially isolated portions as the claimed thread-like structure. BSC therefore was entitled to JMOL of noninfringement.

Irreparable harm? Don’t bury your trade secret

by Jodi Benassi | Aug 6, 2026 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff’s asserted harms, including lost profits and injury from the alleged trade secret injury, could be adequately remedied through monetary damages. Revenue Management Solutions, LLC v. Commerce Bank, Case No. 25-3159 (8th Cir. July 23, 2026) (Gruender, Benton, Erickson, JJ.)

Revenue Management Solutions (RMS) licensed to Commerce Bank software that processes and organizes records and payment information. Commerce marketed the software under the name RemitConnect. Under the parties’ license agreement, Commerce received access to RMS’s confidential software and source code but was prohibited from copying or disclosing the software or source code, reverse engineering the software, or creating derivative works based on RMS’s proprietary technology.

In 2018, Commerce began developing its own software, RemitConnect 2.0. By 2025, RMS observed a decline in Commerce’s use of the licensed version of its software. Suspecting that Commerce had reverse engineered and copied its software, RMS moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit Commerce from using RemitConnect 2.0. The district court denied the motion, concluding that RMS failed to present sufficient evidence of irreparable harm. RMS appealed.

RMS argued that the district court failed to recognize the irreparable harm resulting from Commerce’s misappropriation of its trade secrets. RMS asserted claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, identifying two categories of trade secrets: sets of input-output data and segregation logic. According to RMS, Commerce misappropriated those trade secrets in developing RemitConnect 2.0.

The Eighth Circuit noted that the district court did not expressly discuss RMS’s trade secrets in its irreparable-harm analysis. The Court explained that RMS itself framed its alleged harm primarily as lost profits, referring to the misuse and disclosure of its trade secrets only in passing through a few parenthetical references. By characterizing its injury in terms of lost profits, RMS permitted the district court to conclude that any potential harm could be adequately remedied by an award of damages. The Eight Circuit thus concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that RMS failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Practice note: Although the loss, misuse, or disclosure of trade secrets may constitute irreparable harm, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief should clearly articulate how the alleged misappropriation causes harm that cannot be adequately remedied by monetary damages. Framing the injury primarily as lost profits or another quantifiable economic loss may undermine the argument that preliminary injunctive relief is necessary.

Book of wisdom has limits: Can’t impute knowledge of later-arising facts to hypothetical negotiation

by Ashley K. Justice | Jul 30, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part a US Court of Federal Claims damages award, finding that the court erred in applying the book of wisdom in its damages analysis and assessing noncompensatory damages against the government. 4DD Holdings, LLC, et al. v. United States, Case No. 2024-1996 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (Hughes, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

4DD licensed TETRA software to the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs to improve interoperability among existing military healthcare databases. Under the license, the government was permitted to make only a single backup copy of TETRA. 4DD later discovered that the government had made thousands of unauthorized copies of the software and sued for copyright infringement. During discovery, 4DD learned that the government had deleted TETRA copies from its development and test center and had destroyed evidence related to those copies. 4DD moved for sanctions.

The Court of Federal Claims imposed about $1.1 million in sanctions, found that the government had exceeded the scope of the licenses by hundreds of thousands of Federator cores and Studio seats, and awarded about $12.7 million in damages based on a hypothetical negotiation rather than the parties’ license agreement. In assessing the parties’ bargaining positions, the claims court relied in part on the fact that TETRA was never implemented, had no established profitability, and faced competition from a less expensive software product. 4DD appealed.

4DD argued that the claims court should have calculated damages using the royalty rates established in the parties’ license agreement, which it contended would have resulted in an award amount between $3 billion and $5 billion. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which provides for “reasonable and entire compensation,” does not require a particular methodology for calculating copyright damages. Although a reasonable royalty may be based on an established royalty rate, it may also be determined through a hypothetical negotiation. The Court explained that the relevance of prior license agreements depends on the extent to which they are economically comparable to the infringing use. Because the government’s licensed use differed materially from the scope of its infringing use, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims court did not abuse its discretion in determining damages through a hypothetical negotiation rather than by simply applying the parties’ license rates.

4DD also argued that the claims court misapplied the book of wisdom doctrine by imputing to the government (at the time of the hypothetical negotiation) knowledge of its later decision to abandon the TETRA project. The Federal Circuit agreed. The Court explained that although later-occurring facts may be considered to reduce uncertainty and illuminate the value that existed at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, they may not be used to impute knowledge of unforeseeable future events that affect the value of the license. Here, the court’s claims improperly relied on the government’s subsequent change in leadership and resulting decision to discontinue the project before TETRA was implemented to diminish 4DD’s bargaining [...]

Continue Reading

Late arrival: Fourth Circuit remands after mootness raised for first time on appeal

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | Jul 30, 2026 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded an insurance coverage dispute for the district court to determine whether settlement of the underlying lawsuit eliminated any concrete interest in the declaratory judgment action and rendered the case moot. Covington Specialty Insurance Company v. Omega Restaurant & Bar, LLC, Case No. 24-1364 (4th Cir. July 20, 2026) (Wilkinson, Wynn, Berner, JJ.)

Covington Specialty Insurance issued a commercial general liability policy to Omega Restaurant & Bar, which operated a nightclub in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The policy provided coverage for certain personal and advertising injuries.

In September 2020, several professional models sued Omega in Virginia state court, alleging that Omega used their images in advertisements without authorization. Omega removed the action to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In May 2021, Covington filed a separate action in the same district seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Omega in connection with the models’ lawsuit. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

While the declaratory judgment action was pending, Omega settled the underlying lawsuit. Under the settlement, Omega consented to entry of a $155,000 judgment and assigned to the models its rights and claims against Covington under the insurance policy. The record did not show that Omega informed the district court presiding over the coverage action that the settlement had occurred.

The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for Covington and denied Omega’s cross-motion. The court found that the policy did not cover the injuries alleged in the underlying complaint and concluded that Covington had neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify. Omega appealed.

Omega argued that the district court erred because the underlying complaint alleged conduct that potentially fell within the policy’s coverage. Covington responded by arguing for the first time that the settlement had rendered the dispute moot.

The Fourth Circuit explained that mootness is jurisdictional because Article III limits federal courts to deciding live cases and controversies. A case becomes moot when the parties no longer retain a legally cognizable interest in the outcome and the court cannot grant meaningful relief. The relevant inquiry is whether the parties retain any concrete interest, however small, in the litigation’s outcome.

Although Covington did not raise mootness until more than two years after the settlement, the Fourth Circuit explained that a jurisdictional objection cannot be waived or forfeited. The timing of the argument, however, left the appellate record insufficiently developed because the district court had never considered the effect of the settlement.

The record did not establish whether any cognizable interest remained in the coverage dispute or whether Covington had withdrawn or otherwise abandoned its defense of Omega in the underlying action. Without those facts, the Fourth Circuit could not determine whether the case remained live.

The Fourth Circuit therefore remanded for the district court to determine whether the settlement rendered the declaratory judgment action moot. It did not reach the merits of the coverage dispute and left Omega free [...]

Continue Reading

It’s a wrap: Constructive discovery under copyright statute of limitations

by Vincent Li, PhD | Jul 30, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing a copyright infringement claim as untimely, finding that the extensive publicity surrounding the accused works, combined with the copyright owner’s ties to Italy and the local art community, meant that a reasonably diligent owner should have discovered the alleged infringement years before filing suit. Hayden v. Koons, Case No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) (Chin, Sullivan, Lee, JJ.)

Michael Hayden, a US artist who lived and worked primarily in Italy from about 1980 to 2007, created a Styrofoam sculpture depicting a serpent wrapped around boulders for Italian performer and politician Ilona Staller. In 1988, Hayden sold the sculpture to Diva Futura, Staller’s production company, for approximately $900. The parties did not execute a written agreement or discuss copyright ownership or third-party use. Hayden designed the sculpture as a platform for Staller’s live performances and film productions.

In 1989, Koons hired Staller to pose with him for photographs taken on her sets, including Hayden’s serpentine sculpture. Koons later used the photographs to create works in his Made in Heaven series. Three works were at issue: Made in Heaven (1989), Jeff and Ilona (Made in Heaven) (1990) and Jeff in the Position of Adam (1990), each depicting Koons and Staller posing on Hayden’s sculpture.

The Made in Heaven series drew substantial international attention. The works appeared in magazines, and Jeff and Ilona (Made in Heaven) was exhibited at the Venice Biennale. Publicity surrounding the series continued for decades.

Hayden asserted that he did not discover Koons’ use of the sculpture until 2019, when a business partner sent him an Italian article concerning unrelated litigation that included an image of Made in Heaven. Hayden registered the sculpture with the US Copyright Office later that year and filed suit against Koons in December 2021, alleging copyright infringement, removal, or falsification of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and false authorship under the Visual Artists Rights Act.

The district court granted summary judgment for Koons, finding Hayden’s copyright claim untimely. Hayden appealed.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), a copyright claim must be filed within three years after it accrues. In the Second Circuit, a copyright claim accrues under the discovery rule when the copyright owner actually discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringement. The parties agreed that Hayden lacked actual knowledge before 2019. The dispute centered on whether he should have discovered the alleged infringement earlier.

Hayden argued that constructive discovery required inquiry notice and actual knowledge of facts suggesting probable infringement. The Second Circuit rejected that proposed standard. The Court explained that inquiry notice may help identify when a reasonable plaintiff would have begun investigating, but it is not itself the governing standard for constructive discovery. The Court also declined to require actual knowledge of triggering facts, reasoning that doing so would collapse constructive discovery into actual discovery.

The Second Circuit explained that the proper inquiry is whether the defendant identified sufficient facts [...]

Continue Reading