Tesla argued that 'Kato discloses the Charging Control Limitation because the battery charge level increases in accordance with Kato's generated charging schedule when a user follows the schedule by manually plugging in their vehicle at each charging location.' But the PTAB found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the Charging Control Limitation 'excludes 'the user manually starting and stopping the charging.'
In October 2025, a federal district judge with an active docket of patent suits addressed the question of whether the filing (and, presumably, the service) of a complaint for patent infringement in and of itself precludes the defendant from asserting that it was unaware of the patent (and, thus, could not be a willful infringer). The bad news for plaintiffs: the answer was no.
"Brita cannot use the knowledge of a skilled artisan to make up for the specification's lack of disclosure as to non-carbon-block filters that can meet the claimed FRAP factor." - CAFC The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision in Brita LP v. International Trade Commission, affirming the International Trade Commission's (ITC's) finding that claims of a Brita patent for a water
To apply issue preclusion, courts generally require: (1) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the determination was essential to the judgment; (3) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a party (or in privity) in the prior proceeding.
Strava is suing its long-time partner Garmin, and is seeking to permanently block the company from selling most of its current fitness and cycling gadget lineup. The lawsuit filed in the US District Court of Colorado on September 30th, first reported by DC Rainmaker, alleges that Garmin violated an agreement between the companies by infringing on Strava's patents for segments - route sections where athletes can compare performance times - and heatmaps that show popular areas for activity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday reversing a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and vacating a damages award in favor of Finesse Wireless LLC. The CAFC said there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts finding AT&T Mobility and Nokia (AT&T) infringed two of Finesse's radio signal interference mitigation patents.
Federal Circuit has denied this pair of related mandamus actions. In both cases, the patentee VirtaMove challenged venue transfer orders moving its patent infringement suits from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. As I discuss below, the non-precedential decisions have some interesting jurisdictional tension with recent Fifth Circuit law. VirtaMove is a small Canadian software company holding patents on secure application containerization technology.
Petitioner's awareness of Patent Owner's applications and failure to seek early review of the patents favors denial and outweighs the above-discussed considerations.
The Federal Circuit panel indicated that the district court imposed an unjustifiably high standard on SAP in regard to specifying trial witnesses, though SAP's neutrality claim was upheld.
