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

No specifics, no case? DTSA trade secret disclosure timing differs from CUTSA

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a district court abused its discretion by striking several of the plaintiff’s trade secrets, concluding that the court improperly relied on Rule 12(f) and failed to support dismissal as a discovery sanction under Rule 37. The Court emphasized that the fact-specific question of “reasonable particularity” in Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) cases is generally reserved for summary judgment or trial, not for resolution at the discovery stage. Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-16093 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) (VanDyke, Johnstone, JJ., Christensen, Dist. J.)

Quintara and Ruifeng are DNA sequencing analysis companies that engaged in a business arrangement. The relationship soured when Quintara alleged that Ruifeng locked Quintara out of its office, took possession of its equipment, and hired Quintara employees. Quintara sued Ruifeng under the DTSA for misappropriating nine trade secrets.

During discovery, Ruifeng moved for a protective order to pause proceedings until Quintara identified its trade secrets with reasonable particularity, as required by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 2019.210, the California version of the DTSA. The district court agreed with Ruifeng and ordered Quintara to disclose each allegedly misappropriated trade secret with reasonable particularity. Quintara filed an amended trade secret disclosure, but Ruifeng found it deficient and again moved to halt discovery. To resolve the impasse, the district court gave Ruifeng a choice: either accept the disclosure and proceed with discovery, or move to strike the disclosure, withhold discovery, and risk consequences if the motion failed. Ruifeng chose the latter and moved to strike Quintara’s trade secrets in the disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f).

Citing its broad discretion over discovery and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 16, the district court granted Ruifeng’s motion, holding that Quintara failed to comply with § 2019.210. As a result, the court struck nine of the 11 trade secrets from the disclosure, effectively dismissing Quintara’s misappropriation claims as to those trade secrets. Quintara appealed.

The question before the Ninth Circuit was when in the litigation, and with what level of particularity, a plaintiff under the DTSA must identify its alleged trade secrets. The Court began by noting that CUTSA requires a plaintiff to identify the alleged trade secret with “reasonable particularity” before discovery begins. In contrast, the federal DTSA imposes no such requirement regarding the timing or scope of trade secret identification. Instead, DTSA cases proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not require plaintiffs to specify their trade secrets with particularity at the outset of the case. The Court explained that under the DTSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the claimed trade secret is described with sufficient particularity to distinguish it from general knowledge in the industry or from the specialized knowledge of those skilled in the trade. At an early stage of litigation, particularly when no discovery has yet occurred, it is not fatal to a plaintiff’s claim if the trade secret disclosure [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Feel the burn: Mechanical improvement is patent eligible under § 101

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., Case No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi, JJ.)

PowerBlock sued iFit for allegedly infringing its patent related to dumbbells. IFit moved to dismiss the claims under § 101. The district court found that the challenged claim was broadly directed to the idea of automated weight stacking, and that it purported to cover any system having a few basic components for selecting and adjusting weights, rather than describing a specific method or design for how the system actually worked. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent eligibility, the district court determined that all but one claim of the asserted patent were ineligible under § 101. PowerBlock appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in its Alice step one analysis under § 101. The Court explained that the crux of the district court’s incorrect determination was that the challenged claim was directed to the abstract idea of automated weight stacking, which in turn led to misplaced preemption concerns. The Court found instead that the claim was limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement – namely, a particular type of selectorized dumbbell featuring nested left and right weight plates, a handle, a movable selector, and an electric motor operatively connected to the selector that adjusts the weight based on user input.

Distinguishing the challenged claim from prior cases in which claims were found ineligible, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the claim was directed to an “eligible mechanical invention” and “focused on a specific mechanical improvement,” not merely an abstract or generalized concept. The Court also rejected iFit’s argument that limitations should be discounted simply because they appear in the prior art. The Court reiterated that it is inappropriate to dissect claims into old and new elements and then ignore the old when assessing eligibility under § 101. Rather, under Alice, the “step one inquiry involves consideration of the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” The Court cautioned against conflating the patent eligibility inquiry under § 101 with the separate questions of novelty and nonobviousness under §§ 102 and 103.



read more

Wrestling with prevailing defendant’s post-trial fee request in copyright dispute

by | Aug 21, 2025 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to the defendant after it prevailed at trial in a copyright infringement suit, concluding that the district court adequately addressed the Supreme Court’s Fogarty factors and did not abuse its discretion. Booker T. Huffman v. Activision Publ’g, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-40072 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025) (Richman, Elrod, Oldham, JJ.) (Oldham, J., dissenting) (nonprecedential).

Booker Huffman, a retired professional wrestler, alleged that Activision’s “Prophet” character in Call of Duty: Black Ops IV infringed his G.I. Bro comic book poster. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Activision. Activision then sought attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, arguing that Huffman’s claims were frivolous, objectively unreasonable, and brought in bad faith, citing a lack of supporting evidence and substantial proof of independent creation. The district court found that the claims involved unsettled areas of law and were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable. Applying the factors the Supreme Court outlined in Fogarty v. Fantasy (1994), the district court concluded that an award of attorneys’ fees was not warranted. Activision appealed.

Activision argued that the district court failed to follow Fifth Circuit precedent, which holds that fee awards are “the rule rather than the exception” for prevailing parties in copyright actions. Activision contended that Huffman’s claims were meritless due to a lack of evidence establishing access, striking similarity, or causation. The Fifth Circuit rejected these arguments, emphasizing that there is no automatic entitlement to fees and that the district court’s six-page Fogerty analysis was more thorough than in other cases in which the Fifth Circuit has sustained lower court fee decisions. The Fifth Circuit highlighted that the district court carefully analyzed whether Huffman’s claims were objectively unreasonable, noting that the case implicated areas of unsettled law. The panel emphasized the district court’s denial of Activision’s pretrial motions, the evidence supporting Huffman’s access and similarity, and the district court’s evaluation of the evidentiary record.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Activision’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to analyze each of the Fogerty factors separately, finding that the judge recited the parties’ arguments for the relevant factors and that it could be inferred that the district court did not find Activision’s arguments persuasive. Throughout its analysis, the Court emphasized that a district court’s attorneys’ fees decision is reviewed only for abuse of discretion and not to relitigate the merits.

Judge Oldham dissented, concluding that Huffman’s claims were “speculation piled on fantasy piled on a pipe dream” and that overwhelming evidence of independent creation made the suit clearly unreasonable. Judge Oldman would have awarded fees to compensate Activision for defending against what he characterized as a baseless $32 million claim and to deter similarly unmeritorious lawsuits in the future.



read more

Identical or not? Jury can’t decide issues of claim construction

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement, finding that the jury’s infringement findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence and that the district court had improperly delegated claim construction to the jury. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, Case No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (LabCorp) holds two patents with substantially overlapping specifications, both generally directed to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing and enrichment techniques aimed at enabling whole-genome sequencing. LabCorp initiated litigation alleging that various Qiagen Sciences kits containing materials used in DNA sample preparation for sequencing infringed its patents. During claim construction, the district court construed several patent terms as follows:

  • In the first patent, “second target-specific primer” means a single-stranded oligonucleotide with a 3’ portion that specifically anneals to a portion of the known target nucleotide sequence in the amplicon from step (b), and a 5’ portion identical to a second sequencing primer.
  • Also in the first patent, “second adaptor primer” refers to a nucleic acid molecule containing a sequence identical to part of the first sequencing primer and nested relative to the first adaptor primer.
  • In the second patent, “target-specific primer” is defined as a primer sufficiently complementary to the target to enable selective annealing and amplification, without amplifying non-target sequences in the sample.

The jury found that Qiagen infringed the first patent under the doctrine of equivalents and willfully and literally infringed the second patent. The jury awarded damages accordingly. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for JMOL to reverse the damages and the jury’s findings of infringement and validity, and its alternative request for a new trial. Qiagen appealed.

Qiagen raised two noninfringement arguments regarding the first patent, and the Federal Circuit agreed with both. First, the Court held that it was error to allow the jury to apply “plain meaning” and equate a sequence being “identical to another” with being “identical to a portion” of another. Specifically, Qiagen’s accused second target-specific primer (Sample Index Primer, or SIP) was 19 nucleotides long while the second sequencing primer (Read2 primer) was 34 nucleotides. The fact that they shared an overlapping sequence did not make them identical.

Although the district court had treated “identical” as a factual issue for the jury, the Federal Circuit, citing its 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech., found that this was a claim construction matter that should not have been left to the jury. The term “identical” must be given its full meaning under claim construction and cannot be interpreted as “identical to a portion.” The Court emphasized that the specification and claims distinguished between full and partial identity: The second target-specific primer must be “identical to” the second sequencing primer while the adaptor primer need only be “identical to a portion” of the first sequencing primer. This difference [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

by | Aug 21, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to adequately support the full scope of the asserted claims (35 U.S.C. § 112). Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Case Nos. 23-2117; -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) (Taranto, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

Mondis sued LG for alleged infringement of a patent related to computer display technology. During prosecution, Mondis amended the claims to overcome prior art, changing a limitation from identifying a particular display unit to identifying a type of display unit (the type limitation). A jury found in favor of Mondis and awarded $45 million in damages. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that the patent was invalid due to a lack of written description supporting the type limitation. The district court denied the motion but granted a retrial on damages. The second jury awarded more than $14 million. LG appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied regional law standard (here, Third Circuit law) to review the district court’s denial of JMOL (i.e., assessing whether a reasonable jury could have reached the verdict). In evaluating patent validity under the written description requirement of § 112, the Court focused on whether the specification sufficiently demonstrated that the inventor possessed the claimed invention, including any amendments made during prosecution.

The Federal Circuit examined whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of validity and concluded that LG did not need extrinsic evidence to challenge the patent’s validity but properly relied on the specification. The Court found that Mondis’ attempt to piece together fragments of testimony (primarily related to infringement) to argue for implicit support in the specification was insufficient because the specification’s plain language supported only the original unamended claim limitation, not the amended type limitation.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that both parties presented expert testimony at trial. However, the Court found that even Mondis’ expert testimony, when considered alongside the specification’s plain meaning, failed to provide adequate support for the jury’s finding. While a jury may infer implicit support, Mondis did not present enough particularized testimony to justify such an inference.

Mondis also argued that the examiner’s allowance of the amended claim indicated sufficient support in the specification, and that the presumption of validity of an issued patent supported its position. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the examiner’s focus was on overcoming prior art, not on evaluating written descriptions. Accepting Mondis’ position would effectively shield most patents from later invalidation, a result the Court deemed impractical.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and found the asserted claims invalid for lack of written description.



read more

From confidential to careless: The case of the unprotected customer list

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment dismissal of a trade secret misappropriation complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of a customer list. The Court also reversed the district court’s Daubert ruling, finding that it improperly exceeded the scope of Fed. R. of Evid. 702. John Snyder v. Beam Technologies Inc., Case No. 24-1136 (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) (Matheson, Bacharach, Federico, C.J.)

John Snyder downloaded a national customer list containing more than 40,000 names from his former employer’s client-relationship management system. According to metadata analysis, Snyder last modified the file only three minutes after its creation, strongly suggesting that no meaningful changes or additions were made after the download. Snyder’s employment with the company ended in 2016. Following a two-year period of unemployment, he accepted a position with Beam in 2018.

Synder claimed that Beam induced him to join the company by promising compensation in exchange for customer information he obtained from his former employer. After beginning his employment at Beam, Synder created derivative documents containing subsets of the customer list. However, he inadvertently included the entire customer list as a separate tab in each of the documents he emailed to Beam employees. The documents were sent without any confidentiality markings or indications that they contained trade secrets. Snyder did not restrict access to the documents, apply password protection, or notify Beam that any of the content was proprietary or confidential.

After realizing he had distributed the full list to multiple Beam employees, Snyder took no action to object to Beam’s use of the data or attempt to retrieve the documents. He also failed to inform Beam that he considered any of the materials to be trade secrets. Instead, Snyder appeared to ratify the disclosure, telling Beam’s chief executive officer that he had intentionally shared the customer list with the recipients. A few months later, Beam terminated Snyder for unexplained reasons.

Synder sued Beam for trade secret misappropriation and several state law claims. Beam moved for summary judgment on the trade secret claims, which the district court granted, finding that Synder failed to show that he owned the customer list. The district court denied Beam’s motion on Synder’s other claims.

Both parties filed motions to exclude expert witness testimony at trial. The district court granted Beam’s motion to exclude Snyder’s damages expert under Fed. R. of Evid. 702, ruling that the expert could not support Snyder’s claimed damages for the remaining causes of action.

The district court found that Synder failed to show that he could obtain lost wages damages on any of the surviving claims. Expanding the scope of its ruling, the district court excluded not only the expert testimony, but also all evidence and fact witnesses related to lost wages damages at trial. Following the court’s ruling, Snyder and Beam settled one of the claims and jointly moved to dismiss the remaining claims. Snyder then appealed.

Synder argued that the district court erredin [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Claim construction misstep undoes injunction

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a preliminary injunction (PI), finding that the district court improperly construed a claim term based on references cited in a provisional application but omitted from the asserted patents. FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, Case No. 224-2335 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) (Moore, Chen, Barnett, JJ.)

FMC owns two patents claiming priority to a provisional application concerning insecticides and miticides compositions. The patents specifically cover formulations comprising bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid. Sharda currently markets an insecticide product known as Winner, which contains both bifenthrin and a cyano-pyrethroid.

FMC sued Sharda for patent infringement on its two patents and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a PI. The district court denied both motions but issued a claim construction for the term “composition.” Instead of applying the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, the district court interpreted “composition” narrowly to mean “stable compositions, rather than the well-known unstable compositions that produce ineffective results as discussed throughout the prosecution history.” In reaching this construction, the district court relied on statements made in the provisional application and disclosures found in a separate, non-asserted FMC patent that claimed priority to the same provisional application. However, these disclosures were absent from the asserted patents themselves, appearing only in the provisional application and the non-asserted patent.

FMC renewed its motion for a TRO, which the district court granted and later converted into a PI. In issuing the PI, the district court again relied on its narrow construction of the term “composition” as a key point in rejecting Sharda’s invalidity defenses. Sharda appealed.

Sharda argued that the district court erred in both its construction of “composition” and its determination that Sharda failed to raise a substantial question regarding the patents’ validity. The Federal Circuit first addressed Sharda’s challenge to the district court’s construction of the term “composition,” which had been limited to stable compositions based on disclosures in the provisional application and a non-asserted patent. The Court acknowledged that while the provisional application contained multiple references to “stability,” all such references were deliberately removed from the common specification of the two asserted patents. As a result, the specifications of the asserted patents did not simply carry forward the language of the provisional application but instead reflected a substantive evolution.

Citing its 2024 decision in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, the Federal Circuit emphasized that such omissions are legally significant. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the deliberate removal of all references to stability, would not interpret the term “composition” as limited to stable formulations. Because FMC chose to revise the asserted patents’ written descriptions to exclude any mention of stability, the district court erred in importing a stability limitation from the provisional application and non-asserted patent into the claims. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly grafted a “stability” requirement onto the term “composition.”

The Federal Circuit also found fault with the district court’s [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Collateral estoppel remains inapplicable to unchallenged IPR claims

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply to the assertion of claims from a patent, even when other patentably indistinct claims from that patent have been found unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (per curiam) (Moore, J., concurring) (Dyk, J., dissenting).

Kroy sued Groupon for patent infringement, and Groupon subsequently filed two IPR petitions. The Board ultimately found 21 of the asserted claims unpatentable. Kroy amended its complaint to remove those 21 claims and proceed only with claims that were not at issue in the IPR proceedings. Groupon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Kroy was collaterally estopped from asserting the remaining claims because of the Board’s prior IPR rulings finding other patentably indistinct claims unpatentable. The district court agreed with Groupon, finding that the remaining asserted claims were not materially different from the unpatentable claims in terms of validity and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Kroy appealed.

The Federal Circuit held that a Board determination finding certain patent claims unpatentable under the preponderance of the evidence standard did not collaterally estop Kroy from asserting other unreviewed claims of the same patent in district court litigation against Groupon. Groupon subsequently petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, both of which the Federal Circuit denied per curiam.

Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, concurred in the decision. In her concurring opinion, Judge Moore explained that collateral estoppel does not apply where differing standards of proof exist (namely, the preponderance of evidence standard used by the Board versus the clear and convincing evidence standard applied in district courts) because this difference can materially affect a patent’s validity determination. She emphasized that collateral estoppel should apply consistently in patent cases and cautioned against deviating from the established collateral estoppel standards. Judge Moore also noted that policy concerns are mitigated by the ability to file a second IPR petition, because the Board is likely to grant review where a petition raises a substantially similar question of invalidity.

Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, dissented from the decision. The dissent advocated departing from the traditional burden-of-proof rule applicable in the collateral estoppel context to avoid duplicative litigation regarding patent validity. The dissent argued that the majority opinion conflicted with the Federal Circuit’s 2018 opinion in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, which held that collateral estoppel extends between Board decisions and district court proceedings in pending or co-pending actions. According to the dissent, the majority’s approach permits repeated litigation of the validity of patent claims previously found unpatentable in IPR proceedings affirmed on appeal. The dissent expressed concern that applying collateral estoppel in this manner would enable patentees to evade the preclusive effect of adverse IPR [...]

Continue Reading



read more

To kill a derivative: Licensee has no post-termination copyright control

by | Aug 7, 2025 |

Addressing a dispute concerning two derivative stage adaptations of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of declaratory relief, finding that the plaintiff did not infringe any copyright interest in derivative works following the termination of the defendant’s exclusive licensing grant. Atticus Limited Liability Company v. The Dramatic Publishing Company, Case No. 23-1226 (2d Cir. July 29, 2025) (Wesley, Chin, Perez, JJ.)

In 1969, Harper Lee granted Dramatic an exclusive license to create and license a derivative work stage adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird for non-first-class productions (e.g., amateur and community theater). Lee terminated that grant in 2011 under the Copyright Act’s termination provisions, effective in 2016. In 2015, Lee granted exclusive rights to develop and perform a second derivative stage adaptation to Atticus.

In 2019, Dramatic initiated arbitration against Lee’s estate asserting continued exclusive rights to non-first-class productions despite the termination. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Dramatic. Subsequently, Atticus, which was not a party to the arbitration, sought declaratory judgment that performances of its play did not infringe any rights held by Dramatic. The district court ruled in favor of Atticus and awarded Atticus more than $200,000 in attorneys’ fees. Dramatic appealed the judgment and the parties cross-appealed the award of fees.

Dramatic argued that its exclusive right to stage non-first-class productions of To Kill a Mockingbird survived Lee’s termination of the 1969 grant under the Copyright Act’s derivative works exception. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, finding that Dramatic improperly equated its rights in the derivative work with ownership rights in the original copyrighted work. While Dramatic could continue using its play under the original grant, it could not prevent the creation or authorization of new adaptations. Those exclusive rights belonged to Lee and reverted to her upon termination of the grant.

Dramatic also argued that:

  • Lee’s grant to Atticus was invalid because it preceded the effective termination date of Dramatic’s grant.
  • Atticus’ claim was untimely.
  • Atticus’ claims were barred by res judicata based on the earlier arbitration.

The Second Circuit disposed of each of these arguments, explaining that:

  • The grant date was irrelevant because Dramatic no longer held exclusive rights.
  • The statute of limitations did not toll because Atticus’ claim was for noninfringement, not ownership.
  • The claims were not barred by res judicata because Atticus was not a party to the arbitration.

Regarding the award of attorneys’ fees, the Second Circuit agreed that Dramatic’s statute of limitations and res judicata defenses were objectively unreasonable, justifying a fee award, but found no basis for fees based on an alleged forfeiture of Dramatic’s statute of limitations defense since it was properly raised in the answer, even if not included in its opposition to Atticus’ pre-answer motion for summary judgment. The Court further found that Atticus was not entitled to attorneys’ fees for Dramatic’s limited discovery efforts to determine Atticus’ involvement in the arbitration or for the current appeal. Accordingly, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dim damages methods can doom bright ideas

by | Aug 7, 2025 |

In a mixed ruling on evidentiary exclusions and damages methodology, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court’s decision that excluded patent validity evidence and granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in blocking the defendant’s invalidity case and directed it to reassess the reliability of the damages expert’s testimony under Rule 702. Jiaxing Super Lighting Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) (Dyk, Chen, Hughes, JJ.)

Jiaxing Super Lighting and its affiliate Obert (collectively, Super Lighting) sued CH Lighting over three patents related to LED tube lamps – two covering structural designs and one addressing electrical safety. CH Lighting admitted infringement but argued that the structural patents were invalid under the America Invents Act’s (AIA) on-sale bar. The district court excluded key evidence, found the remaining expert testimony insufficient, and granted JMOL in Super Lighting’s favor. A jury later found CH Lighting liable and awarded damages, which the district court doubled. CH Lighting’s motions for a new trial and renewed JMOL were denied. CH appealed.

CH Lighting contended that certain 2014 LED tubes met all claim limitations and triggered the on-sale bar. The Federal Circuit disagreed, affirming the district court’s finding that CH Lighting’s expert lacked a proper foundation, having offered no concrete evidence or personal knowledge of the alleged sales. However, the Court found error in the exclusion of two key evidentiary items: testimony authenticating sales documents and an internal presentation showing competitor products predating the patents. The district court excluded the documents for lack of authentication and barred the presentation because of its connection to a dropped inequitable conduct claim, later reasoning that the products shown differed in wattage. The Federal Circuit rejected both rationales, explaining that the relevant inquiry focused on whether the products disclosed patented features, not their wattage. The Federal Circuit deemed these exclusions an abuse of discretion, warranting a retrial on validity.

The Federal Circuit separately upheld the jury’s findings on a different patent where the jury found the patent not invalid for anticipation and infringed. CH Lighting had argued that a prior art reference anticipated the asserted claims and that the accused chips could not infringe if the reference did not. The Court found, based on the conflicting testimony of the parties’ expert witnesses, that the jury was free to credit one expert over the other and therefore had substantial evidence supporting the jury’s no invalidity verdict. Similarly, the parties’ experts presented conflicting evidence on infringement and that Jiaxing’s expert’s theory was not necessarily inconsistent with the validity ruling. The Court thus affirmed the findings of validity and infringement.

Turning to damages, the Federal Circuit emphasized that expert testimony must be based on reliable methodology and sufficient factual grounding, reinforcing standards articulated in the recent EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google en banc decision. Because the jury [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES