IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

One frame is enough: Second Circuit narrows de minimis use, limits fair use at pleading stage

by | May 14, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment on the pleadings, clarifying that the de minimis doctrine does not apply where the copyrighted work is identifiable in the secondary use – even if only a single frame is copied – and that fair use is unlikely to be resolved at the pleading stage when an entire copyrighted work is republished for commercial purposes. Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc., Case No. 25-291-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.)

Delray Richardson operates the YouTube channel “Straight Game TV.” In May 2015, he posted a 42 second video showing Michael Jordan intervening in a confrontation. The video gained widespread attention in July 2023 after the hip hop blog DailyLoud reposted it in full on X. Townsquare Media subsequently published an article reporting on the incident and embedded DailyLoud’s X post containing the entire video.

In a separate incident, Richardson recorded an interview with rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel in March 2023. Richardson posted a three-minute clip of the interview, in which Melle Mel made controversial statements about Eminem, to YouTube. The following day, Townsquare published an article discussing the interview and embedded the YouTube clip. The article’s header image included a screenshot taken from the Melle Mel video, depicting Melle Mel next to an image of Eminem. Two days later, Townsquare published a follow up article about rapper 50 Cent’s response and included a second screenshot from the same video, this time placed next to an image of 50 Cent.

Richardson sued Townsquare for copyright infringement based on Townsquare’s use of the Jordan video, the Melle Mel video, and the two screenshots. Townsquare moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that:

  • Its use of the Jordan video constituted fair use.
  • Its embedding of the Melle Mel video was authorized under YouTube’s terms of service.
  • The screenshots were de minimis.

The district court accepted each argument and dismissed the case in full. Richardson appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s fair use ruling as to the Jordan video. Applying the four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of the first, third, and fourth factors.

As to the first factor (the purpose and character of the use), the Second Circuit concluded that it was “debatable” whether Townsquare’s article added meaningful commentary, and even if it did, any transformative character was substantially offset by the use’s commercial nature.

On the third factor (the amount and substantiality of the portion used), the Second Circuit emphasized that Townsquare republished the entire video, rather than linking to or embedding it in a manner consistent with the original platform. That full reproduction weighed heavily against fair use at the pleading stage.

With respect to the fourth factor (the effect on the potential market), the Second Circuit concluded that Townsquare failed to carry its burden of showing that its use did not usurp a market for the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Transformative documentary use, work made for hire doctrine defeat copyright claims

by | May 14, 2026 |

Elaborating on the application of the fair use doctrine in the documentary context, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment after determining that seven of the eight works at issue were works made for hire and that the defendant’s use of the eighth work constituted fair use under all four statutory factors. Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-6086 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026) (Holmes, Hartz, Carson, JJ.)

The dispute arose from Netflix’s use of video footage in its documentary series Tiger King. The footage was filmed by Timothy Sepi, who later claimed copyright ownership through his company, Whyte Monkee Productions. Whyte alleged that Netflix infringed its copyrights by including eight videos in the series.

Netflix argued that the first seven videos were made for hire because Sepi created them while he was employed by the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park. The district court agreed, crediting evidence that filming was part of Sepi’s job responsibilities and noting significant inconsistencies between Sepi’s 2016 and 2021 deposition testimony regarding his employment and role in creating the footage.

The eighth video, which was the only one not created within the scope of Sepi’s employment, was a 24-minute recording of a funeral. Netflix used approximately 66 seconds of the funeral video in Tiger King. The district court agreed with Netflix that this was fair use. Whyte appealed.

Whyte advanced new arguments on appeal challenging the work made for hire status of the first seven videos. The new arguments differed meaningfully from those presented to the district court. The Tenth Circuit found that the new arguments were waived because Whyte failed to raise the theories below or argue for plain error on appeal. Thus, the Court declined to consider them and affirmed summary judgment as to the first seven videos.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the eighth video that all four fair use factors favored Netflix.

Factor one: Transformative use and justification

The Tenth Circuit’s analysis of the first factor (the purpose and character of the use) emphasized that the central question is whether the secondary use has a distinct purpose or character, not merely whether it adds new meaning. The Court explained that the original funeral video functioned as a memorial recording while Tiger King repurposed the footage to illustrate and comment on Joe Exotic’s personality, specifically his performative behavior and megalomania. That difference in purpose rendered the use transformative.

The Court clarified the role of “justification” and “targeting” in transformative use analysis. Where a secondary use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character, no independent justification, such as parody or direct commentary on the original work, is required. Targeting the original work is necessary only where the secondary use does not otherwise establish meaningful transformativeness. This analysis tempers overly rigid interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Warhol v. Lynn decision and preserves flexibility for documentary and contextual uses.

The Court further determined that although Tiger King was a commercial [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It’s not a trap: A shared copyright license can still be exclusive

by | May 14, 2026 |

Addressing statutory standing under the Copyright Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that a license is not rendered nonexclusive merely because the copyright owner retained certain rights or previously granted nonexclusive licenses. Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC, Case No. 24-12482 (11th Cir. May 5, 2026) (Jordan, Newsom, Corrigan, JJ.)

In 2014, a photographer entered into an artist agreement granting Great Bowery the exclusive right to license and market certain photographs. The photographer retained the ability to provide those works to select third parties for limited projects. Around the same time, Condé Nast invited the photographer to shoot the cast and crew of new Star Wars films and obtained a nonexclusive license to publish the photographs in Vanity Fair magazine.

When photographs from Vanity Fair’s Star Wars feature later appeared on Consequence Sound’s website, Great Bowery sued Consequence Sound for copyright infringement.

During discovery, Great Bowery relied on a 2018 authorization letter from the photographer permitting Great Bowery to enforce her copyrights on her behalf. The district court denied Great Bowery’s untimely motion to amend the complaint to add the photographer as a coplaintiff and granted summary judgment for Consequence Sound. The district court concluded that Great Bowery lacked statutory standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) because it did not hold an exclusive copyright interest. Great Bowery appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of leave to amend, explaining that while third party infringers generally may not challenge technical deficiencies in a copyright transfer, they are permitted to dispute whether a purported transfer actually conveyed any exclusive rights. Because Consequence Sound challenged the substance of Great Bowery’s alleged ownership rather than the adequacy of the writing, Great Bowery bore the burden of establishing standing, and Consequence Sound was entitled to contest it.

On the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court misapplied governing law on exclusive licenses. The district court had concluded that Great Bowery’s license was necessarily nonexclusive because the photographer retained certain usage rights and had previously granted Condé Nast a nonexclusive publication license. According to the Eleventh Circuit, that reasoning misunderstood the divisibility of copyright interests.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that copyright rights enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106, such as reproduction, distribution, and public display, are divisible and independently transferable. As a result, a copyright owner may retain or grant some rights while conveying others exclusively. The presence of retained rights or prior nonexclusive licenses does not categorically defeat exclusivity as long as the licensee possesses at least one exclusive § 106 right sufficient to confer standing under § 501(b).

Applying that principle, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument that Condé Nast’s preexisting nonexclusive license necessarily precluded Great Bowery’s exclusive rights. A nonexclusive license grants only permission to use copyrighted material and does not transfer ownership of any portion of the copyright. Thus, the photographer remained free to transfer exclusive ownership interests to [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Words of approximation require more precision after narrowing amendments

by | May 14, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of indefiniteness, concluding that the use of the term “about” to define a critical pH limitation failed to inform skilled artisans of claim scope with reasonable certainty under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp., Case No. 24-2106 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2026) (Lourie, Prost, Burroughs, JJ.)

Enviro Tech owns a patent that claims a method for treating poultry during processing to increase the weight of the poultry by using peracetic acid. Each claim in the patent requires the step of altering the pH of the peracetic-acid-containing water to “a pH of about 7.6 to about 10” by adding an alkaline source.

During claim construction, the district court concluded that the term “about” was indefinite, finding that the intrinsic evidence did not inform a skilled artisan as to the scope of the term “about” with reasonable certainty. Enviro Tech appealed.

The Federal Circuit has long held that words such as “about” and “approximately” may be appropriately used to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. However, when a word of approximation is used, the parameter’s range must be reasonably certain based on the “technological facts of the particular case” and considering the claims, specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence.

Starting with the claims, the Federal Circuit found that they failed to provide meaningful guidance on how far below a pH of 7.6 or above a pH of 10 the peracetic-acid-containing water could fall and still satisfy the limitation. Although the parties agreed that “about” ordinarily means “approximately,” the Court concluded that substituting one term for the other does not clarify the permissible deviation from the claimed range or otherwise inform a skilled artisan of the scope of the claims.

The Federal Circuit next turned to the specification, finding that it also failed to define the scope of “about” with reasonable certainty because it provided inconsistent guidance on acceptable pH deviations. Although the specification disclosed experiments where Enviro Tech only proceeded when the measured pH was within 0.3 of the target, the specification also described instances where Enviro Tech continued experiments despite larger deviations, including a large scale poultry processing test with pH variances of up to 0.5. Given these unexplained exceptions (particularly in a commercially significant real world setting) the Court found that the 0.3 threshold could not be treated as a reliable boundary for “about.” Thus, the Court found that the specification’s conflicting examples left skilled artisans without clear notice of the claimed scope.

Turning to the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit found that Enviro Tech treated the term “about” inconsistently. For instance, in one office action response, Enviro Tech argued that “a peracetic acid solution at the lower end of the claimed range, pH 7.6,” would not have been obvious over the prior art, notably omitting the word “about.” Yet on the very next page, Enviro Tech asserted that “a step of adjusting the pH to the range [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Lost in the constellation: Result-oriented claims miss the mark under § 101

by | May 7, 2026 |

Addressing issues related to patent eligibility, infringement, and damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, finding that certain result-oriented claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked an inventive concept, and were therefore not patent eligible. Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (Lourie, Stoll, Oetken, JJ.)

Constellation sued LG for infringing its patents directed to communication systems employing non-uniform constellations, which are signal configurations designed to improve data transmission capacity compared to conventional uniform constellations. The accused products were LG televisions compliant with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard.

Constellation successfully moved for summary judgment in its favor on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, Constellation asserted nine claims across four patents, which the parties grouped into two categories: “optimization claims,” which recited constellations optimized for capacity, and “constellation claims,” which recited specific non-uniform constellation configurations. A jury found willful infringement and awarded damages. The district court denied LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement and no damages. LG appealed.

On the patent eligibility issue, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework and vacated the district court’s ruling as to the optimization claims. At step one, the Court found those claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court emphasized that the claims were written in a result-oriented manner, reciting a constellation “optimized” for capacity without specifying how that optimization was achieved. Although the claims did not cover every possible optimization technique, they were broad enough to encompass all ways of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court rejected Constellation’s reliance on technical details in the specification and reiterated that the § 101 inquiry focuses on the claim language, not unclaimed implementation details. At step two, the Court found no inventive concept, explaining that Constellation’s alleged innovation was the abstract idea itself and that arguments based on novelty or nonobviousness do not satisfy § 101.

In contrast, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s eligibility determination for the constellation claims. The Court explained that representative claims recited specific, concrete configurations (such as unequally spaced constellation points, distinct labeling, and overlapping point locations) amounting to a particular technological solution to a defined problem. Because those claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the Court did not proceed to step two.

On infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL. The Court clarified that a patentee may rely on industry standard compliance to prove some claim limitations while using product-specific evidence for others, as long as the standard is sufficiently specific and either mandatory or shown to be implemented in the accused products. Applying that framework, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

As for damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of LG’s JMOL motion and its challenge to the admissibility of Constellation’s damages expert. The Court [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Missed delivery: Institution decision statutorily unreviewable

by | May 7, 2026 | ,

Addressing the scope of appellate review under the America Invents Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that challenges grounded in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)’s real-party-in-interest requirement are unreviewable where they are closely tied to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s institution decision. Fed. Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 24-1236 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2026) (Hughes, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.)

FedEx owns a patent related to sensor-based logistics systems that provide shipment information and allow customized access controls. After FedEx sued Roambee for infringement in district court, Qualcomm (although not a party to that litigation) filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging the FedEx patent. Qualcomm identified the Roambee litigation as a related matter but did not list Roambee as a real party in interest.

FedEx opposed institution, arguing that Qualcomm’s failure to identify all real parties in interest violated § 312(a)(2), which requires that a petition identify all such parties before it may be considered. The Board instituted review and later denied FedEx’s motion to terminate, explaining that it would not decide the real-party-in-interest issue because doing so was unnecessary to resolve the proceeding absent a time-bar or estoppel concern. In its final written decision, the Board declined to revisit the issue and held the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. FedEx appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit declined to review FedEx’s real-party-in-interest challenges. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and its own case law, the Federal Circuit explained that § 312(a)(2) is a statutory prerequisite “closely tied” to institution because a petition may be considered only if it identifies all real parties in interest. Thus, challenges asserting that the Board failed to properly apply § 312(a)(2) necessarily attack the institution decision itself and fall within § 314(d)’s bar on appellate review.

The Federal Circuit rejected FedEx’s attempt to reframe its arguments as a challenge to the Board’s post-institution conduct, including the denial of FedEx’s motion to terminate. The Court explained that even when raised later in the proceeding, such arguments “boil down” to whether the Board should have instituted IPR in the first place. Because § 312(a)(2) operates as a prerequisite to institution, those challenges remain unreviewable.

Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination as to several claims. The Board had found those claims obvious based on a combination of prior art because it believed FedEx had not contested that ground. Both parties agreed on appeal that this premise was incorrect: FedEx had in fact disputed the combination. Because the Board’s analysis rested on a mistaken understanding of the record and failed to address FedEx’s arguments or fully evaluate the prior art, the Court concluded that meaningful appellate review was not possible and vacated the Board’s obviousness determination.

The Federal Circuit declined FedEx’s request for outright reversal of the Board. The Court explained that reversal is appropriate only where the record supports a single outcome, but here unresolved factual issues remained, including whether the prior art satisfied the relevant claim [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Expert rule: There are reviewable non-final agency actions

by | May 7, 2026 |

In a decision addressing the scope of constitutional challenges to agency action, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a district court’s injunction barring an investigation by the US International Trade Commission premised on a protective order issued by an unconstitutionally appointed administrative law judge (ALJ). Sidak v. ITC, Case No. 23-5149 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 2026) (Katsas, Rao, Walker, JJ.)

Gregory Sidak served as an expert witness in a 2017 Commission proceeding. During that proceeding, the presiding ALJ issued a protective order governing confidential information. At the time, ALJs were appointed unilaterally by the Commission’s chairman – a practice later called into question by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, which held that ALJs are “inferior officers” who must be appointed by the president, courts, or the “head” of a department. The Commission subsequently ratified the appointments of its ALJs but did not ratify their prior actions, including the protective order at issue.

Years later, the ITC initiated an investigation into whether Sidak violated that protective order. In response, Sidak filed suit in district court seeking to enjoin the investigation, arguing that the order was unenforceable because it had been issued by an improperly appointed ALJ and never ratified. The district court granted a permanent injunction, and the Commission appealed.

The DC Circuit affirmed, first addressing several threshold procedural issues. The Court determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Sidak’s claim arose directly under the US Constitution. The Court explained that no applicable statutory review scheme displaced that jurisdiction for this type of claim, and that litigants may pursue equitable relief to enjoin unconstitutional agency action.

The DC Circuit also rejected the Commission’s argument that Sidak’s claim was unripe. Because the case presented purely legal questions regarding the enforceability of the protective order and Sidak faced a credible threat of sanctions, the dispute was both constitutionally and prudentially ripe. The Court further explained that final agency action is not required where a plaintiff brings an implied constitutional claim rather than a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Turning to timeliness, the DC Circuit determined that Sidak had not forfeited his Appointments Clause challenge. Unlike a party that invokes an agency adjudication and seeks a ruling on the merits, Sidak was a third-party witness who neither initiated the underlying proceeding nor sought relief from the ITC. The Court emphasized that forfeiture principles apply differently in that context and that Sidak had no earlier opportunity or obligation to raise his claim.

On the merits, the DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to enjoin the Commission’s investigation. The Commission did not dispute that the ALJ who issued the protective order had been improperly appointed or that the order had not been ratified. The DC Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of an order lacking constitutional authority.

Finally, the DC Circuit rejected the Commission’s challenge [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Personal jurisdiction: Are cease-and-desist letters enough?

by | Apr 30, 2026 |

In a decision clarifying how certain pre litigation enforcement efforts can establish personal jurisdiction, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Lanham Act and tortious interference claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that cease and desist letters sent into the jurisdiction satisfied the minimum contacts requirement and did not offend due process. Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo, Case No. 24-10293 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Luck, Lagoa, Abudu, JJ.)

Frida Kahlo and Frida Kahlo Investments (collectively, Kahlo) manage and license a portfolio of trademarks and publicity rights associated with the artist Frida Kahlo. Kahlo sued Familia Kahlo and Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo (collectively, Pinedo) alleging tortious interference and Lanham Act violations arising from Pinedo’s efforts to halt a traveling Frida Kahlo exhibition and related merchandise.

Central to the dispute were cease and desist letters sent by Pinedo to Kahlo’s Florida based business partners. The letters asserted that Pinedo held superior rights to Frida Kahlo’s name, likeness, and trademarks and threatened legal action if the recipients continued their involvement with Kahlo. Kahlo alleged those claims were false and caused business partners to withdraw or hesitate, disrupting Kahlo’s licensing relationships.

Kahlo filed suit in Florida. Pinedo moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Florida’s corporate shield doctrine protected Pinedo from jurisdiction and that, in any event, Pinedo lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida. Kahlo appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding first that the corporate shield doctrine did not bar jurisdiction over Pinedo. The Court focused on the language of the cease and desist letters, which expressly identified Pinedo as the “heiress of the painter Frida Kahlo” and stated that the letters were sent “in our capacity as representatives of Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo.” The Court found that those representations showed that Maria Pinedo was acting in her personal capacity, not merely as a corporate agent. As a result, the corporate shield doctrine, which can protect corporate officers from jurisdiction based solely on acts performed for a corporation, did not apply. Because the doctrine was inapplicable, Pinedo was subject to Florida’s long arm statute, which permits jurisdiction where a nonresident commits a tortious act outside the state that causes injury within Florida.

The Eleventh Circuit next addressed whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction would comport with due process. The Court answered in the affirmative, explaining that Pinedo intentionally directed conduct into Florida by sending cease and desist letters to Florida entities. The alleged tortious interference claims arose directly from those communications, satisfying the relatedness requirement for specific jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit also found purposeful availment because Pinedo plausibly alleged an intentional tort, the letters were expressly sent to Florida entities, and it was reasonable for Pinedo to anticipate having to defend itself in Florida based on its actions.

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Pinedo failed to make a compelling case that exercising jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Patent disclosure erases trade secret protection

by | Apr 30, 2026 | ,

Addressing the boundary between patent disclosures and trade secret protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s findings of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper inventorship, concluding that the asserted “trade secrets” were generally known and therefore not protectable under California law. The Court affirmed, however, a $1 million statutory damages award for trademark counterfeiting. International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case Nos. 25 1580; 1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

International Medical Devices, Menova International, and Dr. James Elist (collectively, the plaintiffs) manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile implant. The plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell and associated individuals and entities after Cornell attended a Penuma® surgical training session under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and later helped develop a competing implant. The plaintiffs asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the NDA, trademark counterfeiting based on unauthorized use of the Penuma® mark, and invalidity of two cosmetic implant patents for failure to name Elist as an inventor.

A jury found for the plaintiffs on all claims. After a bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded more than $17 million in trade secret and exemplary damages, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded $1 million in statutory damages for counterfeiting. Cornell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the trade secret verdict in its entirety, concluding that none of the asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law. The Court concluded that the alleged technical trade secrets were disclosed in publicly available patents and thus were “generally known” as a matter of law.

In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that “that which is disclosed in a patent cannot be a trade secret.” Once information enters the public domain through patent disclosures, it cannot later be reclaimed as confidential business information through trade secret law.

The plaintiffs’ remaining alleged trade secret (a list of surgical instruments) fared no better. The Federal Circuit found that the list had been emailed to the defendants without any confidentiality designation or obligation, defeating any claim that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy.

Because the plaintiffs failed to identify any confidential information beyond the alleged trade secrets, the Federal Circuit also reversed the breach of contract verdict. The NDA expressly excluded information that was “generally available to the public,” and the Court found that an NDA cannot transform public domain information into protected confidential material.

The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion on trademark counterfeiting, however, and affirmed the jury’s finding and the $1 million statutory damages award. The Court explained that the evidence showed that Cornell had advertised and offered Penuma® implants without authorization. Cornell argued that the Penuma® mark was registered only for goods, not services, and therefore could not support a counterfeiting claim tied to surgical procedures. The Court rejected that argument, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Cornell offered the Penuma® implant itself as a good, not merely a medical service.

Finally, the Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

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

by | Apr 16, 2026 |

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



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES