IP UPDATE

Top Gun and all that jazz: “Substantial similarity” in the Ninth Circuit

by Lauren Hong | Jan 15, 2026 | Copyrights

Two January 2026 decisions from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirm that copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression, proven through both extrinsic and intrinsic tests. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp. demonstrates strict application of filtration principles and the constraints of selection-and-arrangement theories at summary judgment. Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, by contrast, underscores the central and increasingly contested role of the intrinsic test at trial, even when extrinsic similarity evidence is substantial. Yonay v. Paramount Pictures Corp., Case No. 24-2897 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Hurwitz, Miller, Sung, JJ.); Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al., Case No. 24-3367 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026) (Wardlaw, Mendoza Jr., Johnstone, JJ.) (per curiam) (Wardlaw, Johnstone, JJ., concurring).

The extrinsic test examines objective similarities in protectable expression after excluding unprotectable elements while the intrinsic test asks whether an ordinary reasonable observer would perceive substantial similarity in expression without expert guidance.

Yonay v. Paramount Pictures – “Top Guns”

Ehud Yonay authored and owns a copyright in “Top Guns,” a 1983 magazine article about the US Navy Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as “Top Gun.” Yonay sued Paramount Pictures, alleging that its 2022 film Top Gun: Maverick infringed that copyright. The district court granted summary judgment for Paramount, and Yonay appealed.

The Ninth Circuit applied the extrinsic test and rigorously filtered out unprotectable elements, including factual material about the Top Gun program, stock scenes, and high-level themes. The Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs existed only at an abstract level and did not involve protectable expression. Although “Top Guns” contains vivid prose and an innovative narrative structure that qualify as protectable expression, none of that expression appeared in the film. The Court explained that even under a selection-and-arrangement theory, courts must filter out unprotectable elements and determine whether the works share a protectable “pattern, synthesis, or design.” After doing so, the Court concluded that the similarities identified by the plaintiffs consisted of unprotectable facts and ideas rather than original expression.

Because the intrinsic test is reserved exclusively for the trier of fact, only the extrinsic test was relevant at the summary judgment stage. The Ninth Circuit also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ expert, whose analysis failed to adequately filter out unprotectable elements and therefore relied heavily on similarities in facts and abstract ideas, rendering his opinions unhelpful.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Paramount, holding that Top Gun: Maverick was not substantially similar to the article “Top Guns.”

Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. – Miles Davis photograph

Jeffrey Sedlik owns a copyright in his photograph of Miles Davis. Sedlik sued Katherine Von Drachenberg and her tattoo parlor, High Voltage Tattoo, alleging copyright infringement based on Von Drachenberg’s use of the photograph as a reference to create a tattoo depicting Davis’s likeness, the creation of a preliminary sketch, and the posting of related images on social media. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor [...]

Continue Reading

USPTO launches SEP Working Group aimed at strengthening patent enforcement

by Amol Parikh | Jan 15, 2026 | Patents

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the formation of the Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) Working Group, which will report directly to USPTO Director John A. Squires. The initiative aims to examine policy issues related to patents incorporated into technical standards and provide guidance on enforcement and licensing practices.

Background

Technical standards underpin many modern technologies, including telecommunications, automotive systems, and artificial intelligence. These standards often include patented technologies, which represent significant investment by inventors. Concerns have emerged about the predictability of remedies and the treatment of patent holders within the SEP ecosystem.

Historically, injunctions in SEP disputes have been difficult to obtain in the United States because SEP patents are typically subject to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitments. FRAND obligations are intended to ensure broad access to standardized technologies, but they often create uncertainty around enforcement and limit the availability of injunctive relief. This tension has led to debates over whether SEP holders can effectively prevent infringement when licensing negotiations fail.

Recent USPTO actions

The USPTO’s announcement follows its recent involvement in cases addressing patent remedies, in which the USPTO argued that injunctions should be available for SEP patents. In Radian Memory Systems v. Samsung Electronics, the USPTO filed a statement emphasizing the role of injunctions in protecting patent rights. Similarly, in an International Trade Commission investigation involving dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) devices, the USPTO commented on the public interest in enforcing valid patents. Both of these cases involved the assertion of SEP patents.

Objectives of the SEP Working Group

The working group will focus on three areas:

Clarifying enforcement standards: Reviewing approaches to ensure strong and predictable remedies for SEP holders.
Encouraging broader participation: Exploring ways to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to engage in standards development.
Stakeholder engagement and transparency: Creating dialogue with patent holders, implementers, and standards organizations to identify challenges and develop resources for licensing predictability.

USPTO Deputy General Counsel Nicholas Matich and Senior Legal Advisor Austin Mayron will co-chair the working group. The group will seek input from stakeholders across the innovation ecosystem.

Next steps

The USPTO intends for this initiative to formalize its recent policy efforts and provide a structured approach to SEP-related issues. Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in discussions as the group begins its work.

Deadlines and discretion: Appeal trips over the clock

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jan 15, 2026 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part an appeal of an International Trade Commission decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s issuance of a limited exclusion order against one set of respondents and dismissed the complainant’s appeal of the Commission’s no‑violation finding against another set of respondents as time‑barred under the statute. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 2024-1300 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (Stoll, Lourie, Chun, JJ.)

Crocs filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that multiple respondents violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling within the US footwear that infringed its registered trademarks (the 3D marks), which are associated with certain features of Crocs’ Classic Clog shoes. Crocs’ complaint requested relief in the form of a general exclusion order (GEO), or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order (LEO). Three respondents participated in an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge in September 2022 (active respondents) while four respondents were in default and waived their rights to appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations (defaulting respondents). More than 20 other respondents were terminated based on consent orders or settlement agreements.

In a September 14, 2023, Notice of Final Determination and accompanying opinion, the Commission found no violation by the active respondents, concluding that Crocs had not established likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution of the 3D marks. The Commission, presuming the facts alleged in the complaint as true and finding that public interest factors do not preclude relief, also issued an LEO against the defaulting respondents, barring them from importing the infringing shoes.

On December 22, 2023, Crocs filed a notice of appeal challenging the Commission’s no-violation finding as to the active respondents and its decision to issue only an LEO against the defaulting respondents rather than the GEO that Crocs requested. The Commission countered that Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents was time-barred by Section 337(c), which required the appeal to be filed by November 13, 2023, and argued that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in issuing only an LEO against the defaulting respondents.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Crocs’ appeal against the active respondents as untimely. The Court explained that when the Commission issues a single decision that contains a no-violation finding against one set of respondents and enters an exclusion order against another set of respondents, each ruling carries its own deadline for appeal. In this case, Crocs’ December 22, 2023, appeal was time-barred under Section 337(c) because the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal on the no-violation finding expired on November 13, 2023. The Court also considered and upheld the Commission’s LEO order, concluding that the Commission had articulated a sufficient basis for the remedy and that its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

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