A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries (Fed. Cir., May 19, 2026) 2025-1317

A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries (Fed. Cir., May 19, 2026) 2025-1317

This episode concerns a legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressing whether a patent owner retains Article III standing after granting an exclusive license to another party. The case involves A.L.M. Holding Company and Ergon Asphalt, who appealed a lower court's dismissal of their infringement suit against Zydex Industries. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, determining that the plaintiffs kept sufficient exclusionary rights to satisfy constitutional requirements. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs' retained right to sue, their royalty interests, and their veto power over sublicensing ensured their legal interests were not illusory. By distinguishing this case from prior precedents, the judges clarified that a patent owner does not need to possess all substantial rights to maintain the standing necessary to pursue a lawsuit in federal court. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida (Fed. Cir., May 15, 2026) 2024-2089

This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit detailing a patent infringement dispute between mCom IP, LLC and City National Bank of Florida. The court affirmed the dismissal of mCom's lawsuit, agreeing with the lower court that the asserted claims regarding electronic banking systems were invalid due to obviousness. However, the appellate court reversed the financial sanctions and attorney fees previously awarded against mCom and its counsel. The judges determined that the case did not meet the "exceptional" threshold for such penalties, as there was no evidence of bad faith or frivolous litigation. Ultimately, while mCom lost its claim on the merits of the patent, the court protected the company and its lawyer from punitive legal costs. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Actelion Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2026) 2024-1641

In this episode, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.did not infringe upon patents held by Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. regarding the hypertension drug Veletri®. The legal dispute centered on the requirement that the drug be manufactured from a "bulk solution" with a pH of 13 or higher, a threshold Actelion claimed was met by Mylan’s refrigerated process. However, the court determined that the term "pH" refers to measurements taken at a standard temperature of 25°C, a condition Mylan's product did not satisfy. Furthermore, the court rejected Actelion’s attempt to claim infringement through the doctrine of equivalents, ruling that the company had previously narrowed its claims during prosecution and dedicated certain pH ranges to the public. This decision reinforces industry standards by requiring precise temperature conditions for pH-related patent claims unless otherwise specified. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Bissell v. ITC (Fed. Cir., May 11, 2026) 2024-1509

This episode concerns a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a patent dispute between Bissell and Tineco involving wet-dry floor cleaners. The court reviewed a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), which had previously blocked the importation of certain Tineco products for infringing on Bissell’s patents. However, the ITC also ruled that Tineco’s redesigned products did not violate patent claims because their battery charging behavior during self-cleaning cycles differed from the patented design. Bissell appealed this finding of non-infringement, while Tineco cross-appealed to challenge the validity of Bissell's domestic industry claims and specific technical findings. Ultimately, the court affirmed the ITC’s decision in full, maintaining the ban on original products while allowing the redesigned versions to be imported. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Enviro Tech v. Safe Foods (Fed. Cir., May 4, 2026) 2024-2160

This episode concerns an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit detailing a ruling that invalidated several patent claims held by Enviro Tech Chemical Services. The dispute centered on a patent for treating poultry carcasses with a peracetic acid solution to enhance meat weight, specifically focusing on the precision of pH levels. The court concluded that the word "about" was used too vaguely within the patent to provide a clear boundary for the required chemical environment. Because the patent specification and history contained inconsistent examples of pH deviations, the court found the language indefinite and legally unenforceable. Consequently, the appellate judges affirmed the lower court's decision to strike down the contested claims in favor of Safe Foods Corp. This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.