https://patentcasewatch.com/ Patent opinions and orders from the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit. en-us Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_25-cv-00230-3 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_25-cv-00230-3 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (Dkt. # 62). Having considered the M otion, the relevant pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED . BACKGROUND I. Factual Background and Procedural History This is a patent infringement case. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiffs WAPP Tech Limited Partnership and WAPP Tech Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “WAPP”) filed this action asserting that Defendant Apple Inc. Venue / TransferMotion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00782-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00782-0 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion to Stay this Action Pending Final Disposition of Asserted Claims Challenged in Proceedings Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Connected North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”). (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff Emerging Automotive LLC (“Emerging Auto”) opposes the Motion. (Dkt. No. 45.) Consolidated Defendants Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc. IPR / PTAB https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00515-6 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00515-6 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Motion to Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e) to Include Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited (“Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. No. 359.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the above -captioned suit against Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“BOE”) on November 8, 2023, alleging infringement of six patents. (Dkt. No. General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01186-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01186-0 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Moarbes, LLP (“Mo arbes”), which represented FrenchPorte IP LLC (“French Porte”) in the underlying case, appeals the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois ordering Moarbes to pay fifty percent of a $46,438.60 sanctions award for repeated fail- ures to comply with court orders. FrenchPorte IP, LLC v. C.H.I. Overhead Doors, Inc. , No. 2:21- cv-2014, 2024 WL 1307790 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2024) (“Sanctions Order”). General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01721-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01721-0 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Ceiva Opco, LLC appeals the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of Ama- zon.com, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of ineligibil- ity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND I. At issue in this appeal are four representative claims from four patents: claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,573 (“’573 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,203,930 (“’930 patent”), claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,654,562 (“’562 pa- tent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01617-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01617-0 Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois that (1) dissolved an earlier-issued prelimi- nary injunction against defendant -appellee Zhouty, and (2) denied a temporary restraining order against newly added defendants. We affirm. I Appellant Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. (Shen- zhen) owns U.S. Design Patent No. D886,982, which claims a design for a foldable fan. InjunctionInfringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00752-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00752-0 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Partial Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”). (Dkt. No. 38.) For the reasons stated herein, Samsung’s Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Zophonos Inc. (“Zophonos”) filed the above -captioned case against Samsung on July 30, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. Motion to DismissWillfulnessInduced Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01431-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01431-0 Tue, 21 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Appellant Woodway USA, Inc. appeals the final judg- ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of non- infringement in favor of Appellee LifeCORE Fitness, Inc. Because the district court’s grant of judgment relied on an overly restrictive claim construction , we vacate and re- mand for further proceedings. I A Woodway USA, Inc. (Woodway) is the owner of U.S. Pa- tent Nos. Summary JudgmentClaim ConstructionNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00486-4 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00486-4 Sat, 18 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of David Kennedy (the “Motion”) . (Dkt. No. 579). The motion is fully briefed . (See Dkt. Nos. 632, 694, 760). The Motion w as orally argued at the pretrial confer ence on July 17, 2026 and granted in part, for the reasons more formally set forth below. Except to the extent granted at the pretrial conference and herein, the Motion is denied. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-01022-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-01022-1 Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Retailer Claims. 1 (Dkt. #219). Therein, the movants ask the Court to stay Plaintiff Amide Beverage Company, LLC’s patent-infringement claims against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Woot.com LLC, Walmart, Inc., Sam’s West, Inc., Albertson’s, LLC, The Kroger Company, Target Corporation, Wal green Company, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 7 -Eleven, Inc., Circle K Stores, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation pending a final resolution of the claim against Defendant PepsiCo, Inc. (Dkt. #219- 2). General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00587-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00587-2 Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion for Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment, and Post - judgment Interest (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Collision Communications, Inc. (“Collision”). (Dkt. No. 343.) Having considered the Motion and all related briefing, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. I. BACKGROUND Collision filed the above-captioned case against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) on December 12, 2023. (Dkt. No. Damages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-01040-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-01040-0 Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to D ismiss for I mproper Venue or Alternatively Transfer to the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 19 (“Motion”).) H aving considered the Motion, the associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. The Court also finds that, rather than a dismissal, the above-captioned case should be TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Texas. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff WeCrevention Inc. Venue / TransferMotion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00308-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_26-cv-00308-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion for Alternative Service (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Altheatridge LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 8.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the above -captioned case against Defendant CipherLab USA, Inc. (“Defendant”) on April 17, 2026. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant is a Texas corporation with a registered agent in Texas. (Dkt. No. Motion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00811-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00811-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) a certain subset of Plaintiff’s patent claims . (Dkt. No. 24.) Samsung contends that KIWI’s pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims should be dismissed , while KIWI represents that “it is not currently maintaining” these claims. (Dkt. No. 26 at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the subsequent briefing, and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. Motion to DismissInduced InfringementWillfulness https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00664-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00664-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Defendant”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Willfulness Claims (“Motion”) (Dkt. Nos. 43.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 56), recommending denial of Defendant’s Motion. Defendant has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 57), with Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filing a Response (Dkt. No. Motion to DismissWillfulness https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00650-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00650-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendant requests the Court to transfer the above- captioned patent case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses . Defendant urges that the Central District of California ( “CDCA”) would be more convenient because Plaintiff is based there. However, Defendant is an Israeli corporation. Defendant itself does not appear to have any connection to CDCA. Venue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00916-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00916-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement. Dkt. No. 57. In its Motion Plaintiff seeks the Court’s assistance to enfor ce a settlement agreement with Defendant Foshan Zhengze Model Technology Co., Ltd. (“FMS”) , following its representation to Plaintiff that it “does not intend to execute the settlement agreement.” Id. at 1. On May 27, 2026, Court held a hearing on the Motion, where it heard argument on Plaintiff’s Motion, along with Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Melissa R. Smith and Andrew T. (Tom) Gorham (Dkt. No. General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00854-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00854-2 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT In this patent case, W&Wsens Devices Inc. alleges infringement of claims from five patents relating to photodetector s. Each of the patents, which are related, 1 concerns “photosensitive de- vices having microstructure enhanced absorption characteristics.” U.S. Patent 10,446,700 at 2:45– 47. See also U.S. Patent 10,468,543 at 2:51–53 (same); U.S. Patent 11,621,360 at 1:46–47 (same); U.S. Patent 12,087,871 at 1:54–56 (same); U.S. Patent 12,243,948 at 1:56–57 (same). Claim Construction https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-26-01117-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-26-01117-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT TRAMEC SLOAN LLC v. SURTI 2 Tarun N. Surti appeals a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan to the extent it denied his motion to dismiss or transfer venue . Because the decision of the district court is neither a final judgment nor otherwise properly before us, we dismiss. I Plaintiff-Appellee Tramec Sloan LLC (Tramec) manu- factures the AeroFlap mudflap. The AeroFlap is part of the Fleet Engineers, Inc. Venue / TransferMotion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01254-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01254-0 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Kirk NationaLease Co. (“Kirk”), Altum LLC (“Altum”), and Truck & Trailer Parts Solutions, Inc. (“TTPS”) (collec- tively, the “KNL defendants”) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granting preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons dis- cussed below, we reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Cold Chain, LLC (“Cold Chain”) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,151,084 (the “’084 patent”), which is directed “to an insulated overhead door.” ’084 patent, col. 1 l. 9–10. InjunctionSummary Judgment https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02325-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02325-0 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Wyeth appealed from the District of Delaware's grant of judgment as a matter of law that asserted claims 1, 3, and 9 of U.S. Patent 10,603,314 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,596,162 are invalid for lack of enablement. The claims were directed to dosage forms, yet the specifications disclosed only a broad range of doses — some of which were shown to be toxic — and no actual dosages for any compound within the scope of the claims, leaving practitioners to engage in undue experimentation. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that method-of-treatment claims may ordinarily recite dose ranges without cli EnablementJMOL / Post-Trial https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-9 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-9 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ADOPTING The Parties each filed Cross Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,078,561 (Dkt. No. 112) and Partial Summary Judgment of Validity (Dkt. No. 113). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 303), recommending granting-in-part Plaintiff’s Validity Motion and denying Defendants’ Invalidity Motion. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 310), and Plaintiff have also filed objections (Dkt. No. 311). No responses were filed by either party. Summary JudgmentEnablementInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-8 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-8 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT ADOPTING Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,035,345 (Dkt. No. 111.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 300), recommending denial of Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 302), Plaintiff has filed a response (Dkt. No. 309). Summary JudgmentNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-11 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-11 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial Date. (Dkt. No. 315 (“Motion”).) In the Motion, Defendant argues that Ms. Kindler, Defendant’s damages expert, is scheduled to be on vacation from July 2, 2026 to July 19, 2026 during the Court’s July trial setting. Defendant represents that Ms. Kindler’s accommodations are non-refundable, and that Ms. Kindler is scheduled to testify in other trials later this year. Defendant also represents that Ms. General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-10 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-10 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-I nfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,767,857 ( Dkt. No. 114.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 304) , recommending denial of Defendants’ Motion for Summary J udgment. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 312), Plaintiff has not filed a response. Summary JudgmentNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02270-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02270-0 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Dental Monitoring appealed from the Northern District of California's summary judgment (Alsup, J.) that claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent 11,049,248 and claims 1, 7, and 12 of U.S. Patent 10,755,409 — directed to methods of monitoring the positioning of a patient's teeth using images acquired with a mobile device — are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit agreed that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept sufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications, and affirmed the judgment of invalidity. § 101 EligibilitySummary Judgment https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01368-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01368-0 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Linfo IP, LLC (Linfo) appeals the United States Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismis- sal of its patent infringement action. See Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 3d 679, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (Decision). The district court reviewed the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 (’428 patent) under the two-step framework outlined in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Inter- national, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) , and determined they were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision, 761 F. Supp. 3d at 683. General / Procedural https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-7 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-7 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions to Strike and Exclude Testimony of Dr. Mohamed Helaoui (Dkt. No. 118) and Dr. Vijay Madisetti (Dkt. No. 119) . In the Motions, Defendants argue that testing by Dr. Helaoui and Dr. Madisetti contains improperly disclosed infringement theories, was performed with undisclosed testing apparatus, and was not performed against the accused products or claimed invention. Having considered the Motions, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES both motions. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesMotion to Strike https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-6 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-6 Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports and to Exclude Testimony of James Proctor . Dkt. No. 104. In their Motion, Plaintiffs contend that the opinions of Defendants’ invalidity expert, Mr. James Proctor , are sufficiently unreliable and flawed to warrant exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert . Id. at 1. Daubert / Expert ChallengesMotion to Strike https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01010-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-01010-2 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendant ’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 65) (“Motion”). Defendant seeks to amend its invalidity contentions to include potential system art that Plaintiff designed. Plaintiff elected not to disclose various documents evidencing this potential system art until about two weeks before the close of fact discovery, despite having such documents in its possession and Defendant requesting the information. ContentionsInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103) https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00644-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00644-2 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned case on May 7, 2026 through May 8, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff (“Plaintiff” or “Stratasys”) and Defendants (“Defendants” or “Bambu”) in the above-captioned matter (together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) (Dkt. Nos. 104, 151, 154, 174- 78, 180-93, 311, 312). Summary Judgment§ 101 EligibilityMotions in Limine https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-5 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-5 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. David Ricketts . Dkt. No. 105. In the Motion, Plaintiff contends that t he opinions of Defendants’ Non-Infringing Alternatives Expert, Dr. Ricketts, are sufficiently unreliable and flawed to warrant exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. Id. at 1. Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion, and for the reasons assigned below, the Motion is DENIED, except for the late-disclosed NIA’s discussed below. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesMotion to Strike https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01711-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01711-0 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Etison LLC, d/b/a ClickFunnels (“ClickFunnels”) , ap- peals a judgment of the Distr ict Court for the District of Delaware dismissing its patent infringement lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The district court held that all claims of ClickFunnels’ U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,357 (“’357 patent”) and 11,361,047 (“’047 patent”) were invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act. We conclude that the district court erred by treating one claim a s representative of all challenged claims. § 101 EligibilityMotion to Dismiss https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01124-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01124-0 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Dr. Jonathan Berall sued on claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,827,178, directed to laryngoscope technology; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of North Carolina, which construed the claim term “mounted on” and granted summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the transfer order, adopted the district court's construction of “mounted on,” and affirmed the summary judgment of non-infringement. Claim ConstructionSummary JudgmentNon-InfringementVenue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01102-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01102-0 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT TrackTime, LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,638 and 8,862,978, which it asserted against Amazon.com Services LLC and several other entities (collectively, Amazon) in an infringement action it filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware . TrackTime’s patents claim methods and systems for use on a mobile device to navigate within a multimedia file by using a time -corre- lated transcript. IndefinitenessClaim Construction https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00948-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00948-1 Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (“SSC”). (Dkt. No. 13.) I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff LED Wafer Solutions LLC (“LED Wafer”) filed the above-captioned case against SSC, as well as Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (together, “Samsung”) on September 15, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,952,405 (the “’405 patent”) and 9,786,822 (the “’822 patent”). (Dkt. No. Motion to DismissVenue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00691-1 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00691-1 Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above- captioned case on April 27, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff Telcom Ventures LLC (“Telcom” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant s Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung” or “Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) (Dkt. Nos. 93 -100, 157, 158) . Motions in LimineDaubert / Expert ChallengesSummary Judgment https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-4 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-4 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Lauren R. Kindler. Dkt. No. 108. In the Motion, Plaintiff contends that the opinions of Defendants’ Damages Expert, Lauren R. Kindler, are sufficiently unreliable and flawed to warrant exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. Id. at 1. Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Motion should be, and hereby is, DENIED. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00948-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00948-0 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Claim Splitting and Improper Venue ( the “Motion”) filed by filed by Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (together, “Samsung Electronics”), and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (“SAS”) (collectively, “Samsung”). (Dkt. No. 30.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. I. Motion to DismissVenue / Transfer https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01427-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01427-0 Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Enanta”) appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of Massachusetts granting summary judgment that all claims of Enanta’s U.S. Patent 11,358,953 (“the ’953 pa- tent”) are invalid as anticipated by a public disclosure of a compound within the scope of its claims. Enanta Pharms., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. , No. 22-cv-10967-DJC, 2024 WL 5203036, at *9 (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2024) (“Decision”).1 For the following reasons, we affirm. Invalidity (§ 102/§ 103)Summary Judgment https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01419-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01419-0 Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Appellant PACT XPP Schweiz AG (“PACT”) sued Intel Corporation (“Intel”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging Intel’s computer -proces- sor products infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,312,301 (“’301 patent”) and 8,471,593 (“’593 patent”). PACT ap- peals the district court’s summary judgment of nonin- fringement as to both patents. We affirm. I The asserted patents are both directed to processing architecture in computer systems. Summary JudgmentNon-InfringementClaim Construction https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02088-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-24-02088-0 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Valve Corporation appeals from a supplemental partial judgment of the United States District Court for the West- ern District of Washington . The district court ruled that Valve was estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from as- serting two invalidity grounds , which had not been in- cluded in a 2016 petition for inter partes review , against several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525. IPR / PTABProsecution History Estoppel https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-3 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-3 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Mr. David Kennedy. Dkt. No. 101. In their Motion, Defendants contend that the opinions of Plaintiff’s damages expert, Mr. David Kennedy, are sufficiently unreliable and flawed to warrant exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702 and Daubert . Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion should be, and hereby is, DENIED. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-26-01171-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-26-01171-0 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Boston Scientific Corp. and Relievant Medsystems, Inc. (together, “Boston Scientific”) appeal a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying Boston Scientific’s request for a preliminary in- junction. The requested injunction would restrain Stryker Corporation (“Stryker”) from launching its OptaBlate BVN product on grounds that its sale would induce infringement of claims 16 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166 (the “’166 patent”). InjunctionInduced InfringementDoctrine of Equivalents https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-2 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00195-2 Sun, 14 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Scott J. Savage. Dkt. No. 99. In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court strike the testimony of Dr. Savage, Plaintiff’s survey expert, because it is said to contain late -disclosed survey evidence, and it is not tied to the underlying facts of the case. Id. Having considered the Motion, and for the reasons disused below, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion should be, and hereby is, DENIED. I. Daubert / Expert ChallengesMotion to Strike https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01222-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01222-0 Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Dynapass IP Holdings LLC ( Dynapass) appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ order dismissing with prejudice Dynapass’ claim that Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658. For the fol- lowing reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND Dynapass owns the ’ 658 patent, which relates to sys- tems and methods for user authentication in which user tokens are supplied through communication devices. ’658 patent at 1:1–7. Claim ConstructionNon-Infringement https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00515-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-4_24-cv-00515-0 Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendant Lenovo Group Limited’s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination, (Dkt. # 93), and the parties’ subsequent briefing on the motion, (Dkt. #94, #95, #97). After full consideration, the Court will grant the motion. I. BACKGROUND This is a patent-infringement suit. Plaintiff USTA Technology, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. RE47,720 ( “the ’720 patent”), which “relate[s] to technologies for radio frequency spectrum management in a wireless local area network system.” (Dkt. #34 ¶ 62). DiscoveryIPR / PTAB https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00720-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_24-cv-00720-0 Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) That the Asserted Claims of the ’240, ’467, ’526, and ’814 Patents Are Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 74.) Having considered the Motion, all associated briefing, and the documents submitted in support thereof, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff NEC Corporation (“NEC”) sued Defendants Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations L td. § 101 Eligibility https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01045-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01045-0 Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Ollnova Technologies Ltd. (Ollnova) sued ecobee Tech- nologies ULC d/b/a ecobee (ecobee) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas . Ollnova asserted U.S. Patent Nos . 7,860,495 (’495 patent), 8,264,371 (’371 patent), 7,746,887 (’887 pa- tent), and 8,224,282 (’282 patent) (collectively, the Asserted Patents). The Asserted Patents are directed to improve- ments in wireless communications used in building auto- mation systems . § 101 EligibilityInfringementJMOL / Post-TrialDamages https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01762-0 https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01762-0 Thu, 04 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) appeals from final judg- ments of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that Google LLC (“Google”) and Oath Holdings Inc. (“Oath”) do not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “’843 patent”) and that those claims are invalid as both anticipated and obvious over the prior art, and from the court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. OATH HOLDINGS INC. 3 12(c) holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent s No. § 101 EligibilityNon-InfringementInvalidity (§ 102/§ 103)