Technology in Ariscale, LLC v. Razer USA LTD., No. 2024-1657; nonprecedential; Patent No. 8,139,652; January 6, 2026

Key point(s):

• Any reliance on the specification in § 101 analysis must always yield to the claim language. The specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.
• A specification’s discussion of improved reception performance could not rescue claims where the claimed steps did not recite the purported technical improvement.
• Claimed step order was not inventive where the specification permitted alternative orders and tied no benefit to the claimed sequence.

Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC, Nos. 2024-1023, -1127; nonprecedential; Patent No. 9,594,956; January 7, 2026

Key point(s):

• The district court’s exclusion of potentially relevant evidence required a new trial.
• A declaratory judgment must be supported by specific findings, especially when extending to future conduct.

Viasat, Inc. v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., No. 2024-1483; nonprecedential; Patent No. 8,966,347; January 7, 2026

Key point(s):

• In electronic patents, claim elements listed separately do not always require physically distinct structure; Functions may be performed by overlapping or shared circuitry.
• Substantial evidence review upholds the Board’s findings because the prior art’s structure fits comfortably within the claim language.

Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2024-1300; Precedential (3-0); Trademark Nos. 5,149,328 and 5,273,875; January 8, 2026

Key point(s):

• ITC deadlines for different parties may run separately, depending on whether a violation was found and whether presidential review applies.
• When only some respondents default, the ITC is limited by statute to issuing a limited exclusion order (LEO), not a general exclusion order (GEO).

Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Association, No. 2023-2073; nonprecedential; January 8, 2026

Key point(s):

• Priority of use is critical in trademark oppositions; substantial evidence of prior use and distinctiveness will defeat later-filed applications.
• Marks that play on dual meanings (e.g., judicial puns) can be inherently distinctive and function as trademarks if used as source identifiers.

Sandstrom v. International Trade Commission, No. 2025-1269; nonprecedential; Patent Nos. 10,567,474 and 10,848,546; January 9, 2026

Key point(s):

• Evidence of generic compliance with industry standards is insufficient to show infringement if the specific versions of the standards at issue are not established.
• Unsworn attorney argument and claim charts that do not link accused products to specific standards are not evidence and cannot defeat summary determination.