IP UPDATE

Unauthorized streaming of foreign TV programming dishes up copyright infringement liability

by Lauren Hong | Apr 23, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a judgment for an exclusive licensee arising from unauthorized streaming of Arabic language television programming into the United States. The Court’s ruling reinforces both the strength of registered foreign works and the limits on an accused infringer’s ability to challenge ownership and transfer agreements. Dish Network L.L.C. v. Fraifer, Case No. 24-10223 (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2026) (Branch, Abudu, Kidd, JJ.)

DISH had exclusive US rights to distribute and publicly perform certain Arabic language television channels (protected channels). DISH’s rights derived from agreements with MBC FZ LLC, which provides five of the protected channels. Fraifer operated UlaiTV and AhlaiTV, selling set top boxes and using internet infrastructure to capture live broadcasts abroad and retransmit them to customers in the United States via content delivery networks (CDNs) without DISH’s authorization. After a bench trial, the district court found direct copyright infringement. Fraifer appealed.

Fraifer raised three arguments on appeal, all of which the Eleventh Circuit rejected.

First, Fraifer argued that DISH failed to establish valid ownership of the copyrighted works, which were first published in the United Arab Emirates. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The Court concluded that MBC’s US copyright registrations were entitled to the statutory presumption of validity. Because DISH was not the author of the works, the Court examined whether DISH had sufficiently established MBC’s initial ownership. Fraifer argued that the works were “joint works” under UAE law, which would undermine MBC’s sole ownership. But the Court concluded that the television programs were better characterized as “collective works,” since the various creative contributions (writing, music, directing, and other artistic elements) were inseparable in the final audiovisual products.

That classification mattered because under UAE copyright law, the entity directing the creation of a collective work may exercise the relevant rights absent an agreement to the contrary. The Eleventh Circuit also declined to entertain a late-raised challenge to the validity of the registrations, noting that Fraifer had failed to preserve invalidity as an affirmative defense. As a result, MBC was entitled to the statutory presumption of ownership, which DISH could rely on.

Second, Fraifer contended that MBC had not validly transferred exclusive rights to DISH. Even assuming arguable defects in the written conveyances, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Fraifer lacked standing to raise the issue. Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act is designed to resolve disputes between copyright owners and transferees, not to provide accused third party infringers with a defense where neither the owner nor the transferee disputes the transfer. Because MBC and DISH agreed on the status of the rights, Fraifer could not dispute the transfer.

Finally, Fraifer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting direct infringement. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that the record supported the finding of direct infringement based on Fraifer’s use of encoders to ingest live broadcasts and push copyrighted programming onto its streaming system for customer viewing. The Eleventh Circuit also upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, including the admission of expert testimony, monitoring [...]

Continue Reading

Pay up, per party litigation stipulation

by Lauren Hong | Apr 23, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived key portions of a long-running patent dispute, rejecting the district court’s extraterritoriality ruling and narrowing its prosecution disclaimer analysis while leaving intact the exclusion of certain damages theories for inadequate disclosure. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 24-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2026) (Moore, Chen, Kleeh, JJ.)

VLSI filed suit in 2017 accusing Intel of infringing several patents related to selecting an appropriate core in a multicore processor to execute a task based on measured performance characteristics. Following claim construction and discovery, the district court struck portions of VLSI’s damages case, concluding that certain theories advanced by VLSI’s damages expert had not been adequately disclosed. The court then granted summary judgment of noninfringement on two independent grounds: extraterritoriality on the theory that the claimed “measuring” activity occurred outside the United States, and failure of VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents arguments. VLSI appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed in substantial part. As to the asserted method claims, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court’s extraterritoriality analysis could not be reconciled with the parties’ stipulation. That stipulation provided that, for accused Intel products and activities meeting the technical requirements of the asserted claims, 70% would be deemed to satisfy the requisite US nexus for infringement purposes. The district court had reasoned that the stipulation could not establish domestic infringement unless the underlying claim limitations themselves were practiced in the United States. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing the stipulation’s plain language that the technical requirement inquiry was to be conducted “without regard to geographic considerations.”

The Federal Circuit rejected Intel’s contention that the stipulation merely served as a damages accounting shortcut rather than as an agreement bearing on infringement. However, in the Court’s view, stipulating a fact relevant to infringement, such as US nexus, is different from conceding infringement itself. The Court therefore found that Intel was bound by the agreement it struck, even if it later came to view the agreement as “imprudently made.”

On that basis, the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on extraterritoriality grounds for the asserted method claims.

The Federal Circuit also reversed summary judgment as to the asserted apparatus claims. It concluded that the district court had focused too narrowly on where the claimed measuring functionality was practiced, rather than on whether the accused products were reasonably capable of performing the claimed functions without significant alteration. The Court concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the accused products were reasonably capable of performing the claimed measuring limitations. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate, and the Court reversed the extraterritoriality ruling as to the apparatus claims.

The Federal Circuit also reinstated VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents theory for some of the apparatus claims that the district court had barred based on a prosecution disclaimer finding. Referencing the prosecution of the asserted patent, the district court imported an “upon identifying” limitation into the claims, notwithstanding [...]

Continue Reading

Public use, even without explicit public disclosure, is patent bar under pre-AIA § 102(b)

by Tyler Jackson | Apr 23, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) on sale bar, holding that a third party sale to the public of a product embodying a patented method and apparatus can trigger invalidity even where details of the invention were not expressly disclosed. Definitive Holdings v. Powerteq, Case No. 24-1761 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026) (Moore, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Definitive Holdings sued Powerteq alleging infringement of a patent directed to methods and systems for reprogramming engine controllers. With a priority date of March 30, 2001, the patent was subject to pre-AIA law. Powerteq moved for summary judgment of invalidity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), arguing that a nonparty, Hypertech, had sold a product (the PP3) that embodied all limitations of the asserted claims more than one year before the patent’s priority date.

Rather than disputing the underlying facts, Definitive challenged the admissibility of the evidence on which Powerteq relied. Definitive argued that the deposition testimony of Hypertech’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, the PP3 source code, and expert testimony relying on that source code were inadmissible. The district court rejected those arguments and granted summary judgment of invalidity, concluding that the third party sales triggered the on sale bar. Definitive appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo, applying Tenth Circuit law.

Definitive first argued that the district court improperly relied on testimony from Hypertech’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Hypertech CEO and owner Jay Ramsay. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that Ramsay’s testimony was based on his personal knowledge and thus was sufficient to authenticate Hypertech’s sales records and establish that Powerteq’s expert analyzed source code from the PP3 product.

The Court explained that a reasonable juror could conclude that Ramsay had personal knowledge of Hypertech’s recordkeeping practices and sales activities. Because those portions of the testimony were sufficient to support summary judgment, the Court declined to address whether other portions of the 30(b)(6) testimony were properly considered and how the Tenth Circuit generally treats Rule 30(b)(6) testimony at summary judgment.

Definitive next argued that the PP3 source code and related expert testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court explained that while comments or annotations in source code could, in some circumstances, qualify as hearsay statements, the operative source code itself functions as a set of commands or instructions. As such, it is not offered for the truth of any assertion. The Court therefore found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering expert testimony describing the functioning of the source code when granting summary judgment.

Finally, Definitive contended that the on sale bar did not apply because Hypertech’s sales of the PP3 did not publicly disclose how to perform the patented method, even if the PP3 embodied all claim limitations and was sold more than one year before the priority date.

The Federal Circuit rejected Definitive’s argument, emphasizing that Hypertech’s sales directly conveyed to the public the ability to practice the [...]

Continue Reading

How ex parte is ex parte reexam?

by Lisette Donewald | Apr 16, 2026 | Patents

Under a new procedure, announced in an Official Gazette Notice dated April 1, 2026, patent owners may now provide input before the United States Patent and Trademark Office decides whether to initiate an ex parte reexamination proceeding. Previously, while patent owners could participate after reexamination was ordered, they had no opportunity to submit arguments before the Office determined whether a request raised a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). Under the new policy, patent owners may submit a limited pre-order paper to inform that threshold determination.

Ex parte reexamination is an administrative mechanism that allows third parties to challenge patent validity outside of court. Unlike inter partes review and post-grant review – both adjudicated by Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges – ex parte reexaminations are handled by the Central Reexamination Unit and initiation there turns on whether or not the request raises an SNQ.

The new procedure introduces an optional patent owner pre-order paper that must be filed within 30 days of service of the reexam request, with no extensions available. The submission is limited to 30 pages and must focus on why the cited prior art does not raise an SNQ. Supporting declarations are permitted and do not count toward the page limit, but incorporation by reference is not allowed.

The notice also places important limits on the scope of these submissions. The patent owner’s paper must be directed only to the issues raised in the request and should not address matters outside that scope. For example, the Office indicates that arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are not part of the SNQ determination and therefore should not be included.

Requesters have limited ability to respond to a patent owner’s pre-order paper. While responses are not ordinarily permitted, a requester may petition to file a reply (limited to 10 pages). Any such reply must be filed within 15 days of service of the patent owner’s paper and requires payment of a fee.

These changes may shift the dynamics of ex parte reexamination practice. Historically, institution decisions were made based solely on the requester’s submission. The new procedure allows patent owners to present arguments earlier in the process, potentially assisting the Office in evaluating whether the request satisfies the SNQ standard before ordering reexamination.

For challengers, this change increases the importance of the initial request. Requests should be drafted with the expectation that the patent owner may respond before institution and that opportunities to reply will be limited.

Article III standing: Claims of future injury must be sufficiently tied to the claim limitations at issue

by Taylor MacDonald | Apr 16, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a post-grant review (PGR) for lack of Article III jurisdiction, finding that the appellant failed to meet its burden to prove it would likely suffer an injury in fact. ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., Case No. 2024-1831 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026) (Moore, Lourie, Reyna J.J.)

Mobile advertising company Digital Turbine has a patent related to streamlined background processes for downloading and installing mobile applications. That patent is a continuation an earlier related patent which was invalidated during a prior PGR proceeding. Mobile advertising and app monetization platform ironSource once had a product on the market called Aura, which included “Click to Install” features. When faced with what it referred to as “veiled threats” of liability for infringement of the earlier patent, ironSource modified its Aura product – eventually removing it from the market – and petitioned the Patent Trial & Appeal Board for a PGR of the continuation patent’s claims 1 – 22.

During the PGR, the Board held that claims 1 – 22 were all unpatentable pursuant to its earlier decision in the earlier PGR but allowed Digital Turbine to amend the claims. In so doing, Digital Turbine included, among other changes, two narrowing limitations to the claims. The Board concluded that ironSource had not carried its burden of proving that the newly amended claims were unpatentable or ineligible for patent protection. ironSource appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit explained that while Article III standing is not required before the Board, it is required to sustain an appeal of the Board’s decisions. The burden is on the appellant to prove it meets the requirements for standing under federal law at the time of filing. Federal law requires an appellant to prove it has “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the [appellee], and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo. Specific to patent cases, the appellant must show concrete evidence of its intended future actions that pose a substantial risk of infringement or an assertion of infringement.

To meet this obligation, ironSource submitted a declaration by one of its senior directors. The declarant discussed past changes and concessions to the Aura product that ironSource had made in light of Digital Turbine’s patent rights. It also stated that ironSource intended to reintroduce the Aura product to the market. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit held that ironSource failed to meet its burden of tying that potential product’s features to the patent’s amended claims. Instead, ironSource focused on the claims of the original, alleging that they were “substantially identical” to the continuation patent’s claims, i.e., the claims Digital Turbine had previously “threatened” against the company. The Court emphasized, however, that ironSource failed to account for the narrowing limitations in the amended claims and thus failed to prove a likely injury in fact from infringement of the substituted claims.

Finally, the Federal Circuit distinguished [...]

Continue Reading