PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. IFIT, Inc., No. 2024-1177 (Aug. 11, 2025) (precedential 3-0); U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771

Key points:

• The Alice step one inquiry requires consideration of the claims “in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”
• It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the § 101 analysis.

Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-2349 (Aug. 13, 2025) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,885, 10,820,117

Key points:

• Courts should be cautious about striking expert opinions based on new, unwritten requirements and should avoid wholesale strikes for minor procedural issues.
• Specification disavowal must be clear expressions of exclusion or restriction representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC., No. 2023-2350 (Aug. 13, 2025) (precedential 3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 10,017,810, 10,450,597

Key points:

• Combined function of multiple elements cannot be relied on to satisfy an individual limitation under the function-way-result test of the doctrine of equivalents.
• The claim scope must be determined by the court, not the jury.

ABC Corporation v Partnership and Unincorporated Associations, Nos. 2024-1471, 2024-1472 (Aug. 14, 2025) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent Nos. D737,723, D738,256, D784,195, D785,112

Key point:

• Where a dominant feature of the patented design and the accused products appears in the prior art, the focus of the infringement substantial similarity analysis is on other features in the design.

RFCyber Corp. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, No. 2023-2418 (Aug. 14, 2025) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009

Key point:

• Claim language is not limited by specific embodiments in the specification.