IP UPDATE

Bond order doesn’t qualify for immediate appeal

by Vincent Li, PhD | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed strict limits on interlocutory review, finding that a bond order, even one imposing significant financial obligations, is not directly appealable. Micron Technology, Inc., et al. v. Longhorn IP LLC, Case No. 23-2007; Katana Silicon Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-2095 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2025) (Lourie, Schall, Stoll, JJ.)

Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act allows targets of bad faith patent assertions to seek equitable relief, damages, fees, and punitive damages. It also authorizes courts to require the party asserting patent infringement to post a bond equal to estimated litigation costs and potential recovery.

Micron, a semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Boise, Idaho, faced infringement claims from Katana Silicon in the Western District of Texas based on three expired patents. Micron counterclaimed under the Idaho act, alleging bad faith. After transfer of the case to the District of Idaho, Idaho intervened to defend the act’s constitutionality. Micron also sued Longhorn IP (alleged to control Katana) in Idaho state court under the act, seeking a $15 million bond. Longhorn removed that case to federal court. Both Katana and Longhorn moved to dismiss on preemption grounds. Both motions to dismiss were denied, and the district court imposed an $8 million bond on Katana and Longhorn pursuant to the act’s bond provision. Katana and Longhorn directly appealed the bond order.

Since there was no final judgment, the threshold question was jurisdiction. Katana and Longhorn raised three theories under which the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction on the direct appeal.

First, Katana and Longhorn argued that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which provides appellate jurisdiction on interlocutory orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions. Katana and Longhorn argued that the bond order was “injunctive in nature” and posed irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that a bond is not an injunction and does not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal. The Court found that Katana and Longhorn could seek modification or waiver in district court and that no serious hardship or inability to challenge later was shown.

Second, Katana and Longhorn argued that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, which is “a narrow exception whose reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal.” To fall under this exception, an order must satisfy at least the following conditions:

Conclusively determine the disputed question.
Resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.
Be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

The Court concluded that, at a minimum, the second and third conditions were not met. The Court explained that the bond issue was intertwined with the ultimate merits question of the bad faith claims because the same factors that can demonstrate bad faith in the motion to dismiss analysis implicate whether to impose a bond. The Court also explained that nothing prevented Katana [...]

Continue Reading

Direct injection fuel dispute fizzles

by Lisette Donewald | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed three Patent Trial & Appeal Board final written decisions finding claims of three related patents unpatentable as obvious and reiterated that challenges to the Board’s authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are largely insulated from appellate review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case Nos. 2024-1381; -1382; -1383 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (Chen, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) owns three related patents directed to fuel management systems for spark-ignition engines, which it exclusively licensed to Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). The patents disclose systems using both port fuel injection and direct injection to suppress engine knock by injecting an anti-knock agent, with increasing use of direct injection at higher torque levels.

EBS sued Ford for patent infringement. During claim construction, EBS and Ford disputed the meaning of claim terms related to “direct injection” fuel. EBS proposed the plain and ordinary meaning and no constraints on the term. Ford proposed terms requiring a fuel that is different from fuel used in port injunction systems and contains an anti-knock agent other than gasoline. While claim construction was pending, Ford filed IPR petitions using EBS’s proposed claim construction.

While Ford’s IPR petitions were pending, the district court adopted Ford’s construction and entered summary judgment of noninfringement. EBS appealed, and the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s decision. Before the Federal Circuit had decided the appeal, the Board denied institution on all three IPR petitions primarily because it, like the district court, construed the direct injection fuel terms to require fuel different from the fuel used in the port injector. After the Federal Circuit decision, the Board granted rehearing, instituted IPRs, and ultimately found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. EBS appealed the Board’s final written decisions.

Institution challenge barred under § 314(d)

EBS argued that the Board acted unlawfully by effectively “staying” its decision on Ford’s rehearing request for more than a year while awaiting the Federal Circuit’s ruling on the district court appeal, and that the resulting institution decisions should therefore be vacated.

The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that it was, in substance, an impermissible challenge to the Board’s institution determinations. The Court explained that § 314(d) bars appellate review not only of institution decisions themselves, but also of challenges “closely related” to those determinations. Characterizing the Board’s delay as an ultra vires “stay” did not change the analysis, particularly since no statutory deadline governed the timing of rehearing decisions and no IPR had yet been instituted.

The Federal Circuit further noted that the narrow exceptions to § 314(d), such as colorable constitutional claims, did not apply because EBS failed to raise a viable due process or other constitutional argument.

Claim construction: District court rulings don’t control

EBS next argued that the Board was bound by the district court’s earlier claim construction (applied during the prior Federal Circuit appeal) requiring a non-gasoline anti-knock [...]

Continue Reading

Equivalents still requires all elements be met, injunctive relief still governed by eBay factors

by Jake B. Vallen | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for each and every claim element, and that a grant of injunctive relief requires proof of all eBay factors. On the issue of willfulness, the panel majority held that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was a reversable error. Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co., Inc., Case Nos. 23-2043; -2233; -2326 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (Moore, Prost, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Wonderland owns two patents directed to convertible child car seats. Wonderland alleged that Evenflo’s four-in-one convertible seat models infringed its patents. A jury found infringement of one patent under the doctrine of equivalents and infringement of the other patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court entered judgment and permanently enjoined Evenflo from activities related to both patents. Evenflo appealed.

Evenflo challenged the finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the first patent, arguing that its accused seats lacked the claimed “locking mechanism for selectively detachably connecting” the seat back to the seat assembly. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that no reasonable jury could find equivalence because the claim “plainly requires the seat back to include the components for selective detachability,” whereas Evenflo’s seats “simply include a stationary metal bar” and all locking components reside on the seat assembly. As a result, the Court concluded “there c[ould] be no equivalence as a matter of law.”

Evenflo also argued that the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining activities relating to both patents. Regarding the first patent, the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because Wonderland expressly declined to request such relief. Wonderland argued the grant of a permanent injunction as to the first patent was harmless error because it had the same “practical effects” as the injunction for the second patent. The Court disagreed, explaining that the injunction could affect Evenflo’s release of other products, which may not necessarily infringe the second patent.

Regarding the second patent, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because it relied solely on speculative and conclusory evidence that Wonderland suffered, and would continue to suffer, irreparable harm or injury that could not be compensated with monetary damages. The Court explained that the district court failed to identify evidence that Wonderland’s partner lost sales or market share to Evenflo rather than other competitors, or that the partner’s reputation or product distinctiveness was harmed. The Court also noted that testimony that a lost car seat sale “naturally leads” to loss of other product sales was based on conjecture without supporting data. Finally, the Court found that statements that consumers “might think” technology problems existed if Evenflo’s product failed were deemed speculative and insufficient to establish irreparable harm.

Wonderland cross-appealed, asserting [...]

Continue Reading

Coffee, tea, or doctrine of foreign equivalents?

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Dec 18, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision upholding refusal of the KAHWA mark for cafés and coffee shops, holding that the doctrine of foreign equivalents was inapplicable since KAHWA has a well-established alternative English meaning. In re Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co., Case No. 2024-1118 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (Moore, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

In February 2021, Bayou applied to trademark KAHWA for cafés and coffee shops, claiming use since 2008. The examiner refused, deeming the mark generic or descriptive under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, asserting that KAHWA means “coffee” in Arabic. Bayou argued that it instead refers to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea not sold in US cafés or coffee shops. The examiner upheld refusals on both grounds and denied reconsideration.

On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s refusals based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning but did not address the Arabic meaning. The Board found KAHWA generic and descriptive for cafés and coffee shops due to record evidence showing relevant customers regarded KAHWA as the generic description for a type of green tea beverage, and cafés and coffee shops serve a variety of tea beverages. Bayou appealed.

The Federal Circuit first determined that the Board’s generic and merely descriptive findings based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning did not constitute new grounds of rejection. The Court also reversed the Board’s generic and merely descriptive findings based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s generic finding was not supported by substantial evidence because of undisputed evidence that no café or coffee shop in the United States sells kahwa. Therefore, whether relevant customers understood KAHWA to refer to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea was insufficient to establish genericness. The Court also held that the Board’s merely descriptive finding was not supported by substantial evidence because kahwa is neither a product/feature of café and coffee shop services nor a tea variety typically offered there. Moreover, registering KAHWA would not grant Bayou rights against cafés or coffee shops merely selling kahwa, and potential future sales were irrelevant to the descriptiveness analysis.

Finally, the Federal Circuit held that because KAHWA’s undisputed English meaning is Kashmiri green tea, translation was unnecessary, and the doctrine of foreign equivalents did not apply. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a foreign mark may be translated into English to evaluate it for genericness or descriptiveness. However, translation is not required when consumers would not translate, or when the mark has a well‑established alternative meaning that makes the literal translation irrelevant.

Authentication approved: § 314(d) doesn’t bar review of IPR petition scope

by Keval Amin | Dec 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board inter partes review (IPR) decision, finding that:

§ 314(d) does not bar review of an IPR petition’s scope.
Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the prior art taught the disputed limitations.
The Board correctly distinguished similar but different claim elements.

International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1170; -1274 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) (Chen, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

IBM holds a patent related to systems and methods for single sign-on (SSO) operations, enabling users to create and access multiple accounts using a single set of login credentials. Rakuten petitioned for IPR, asserting an anticipation challenge under § 102 and three obviousness challenges under § 103. The Board instituted review and addressed three claim limitations central to the dispute.

The Board first addressed the “protected resources” limitation. It adopted IBM’s construction requiring URLs or URIs and ultimately found the anticipation challenge unmet, but not because Sunada prior art failed to disclose the limitation. Instead, Rakuten (the original IPR petitioner) expressly abandoned its § 102 anticipation ground at oral argument, and afterward the Board found that Rakuten had not carried its burden. However, the Board agreed that a prior art reference nonetheless satisfied the limitation because the Board concluded that a skilled artisan would understand Sunada’s express disclosure that “web applications” be identified by conventional URLs or URIs.

Next, the Board construed “identifier associated with the user” to mean information that uniquely identifies a user, adopting IBM’s preferred construction. The Board found that the prior art reference disclosed this limitation through its use of a “User ID.”

Finally, the Board determined that Rakuten failed to establish that the asserted prior art taught the limitation requiring the second system to send a request message to a first system “in response to a determination” during user account creation. The prior art disclosed sending such a request only to the user’s own computer (not to the first system) when additional user information was needed.

The Board held several challenged claims unpatentable and others not unpatentable based on the asserted prior art. IBM appealed regarding all the claims the Board found unpatentable, contending that the Board’s analysis of “protected resources” relied on a theory of patentability not raised in the reward company’s petition, and that the Board’s findings on “identifier associated with the user” lacked substantial evidence. Zillow cross-appealed with respect to all claims the Board held not unpatentable, arguing that the Board’s findings lacked substantial evidence.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on both appeals. First, responding to Zillow’s reviewability challenge, the Court held that § 314(d) did not bar review of whether the Board stayed within the petition’s grounds. The Court explained that while institution decisions are unreviewable, courts routinely examine whether the final written decision relies on theories actually presented in the petition. Zillow argued that because IBM’s challenge was “closely tied” to the Board’s institution decision, § 314(d)’s bar on [...]

Continue Reading