In re Gamble, No. 2025-1133 (May 8, 2025) (non-precedential); US Patent Application No. 16/718,124

Key point:

• Failing to submit substantive arguments against rejections on appeal results in a forfeiture of challenging these rejections.

Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharma. Ind., Inc., No. 2023-1300 (May 7, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); US Patent No. 10,561,659

Key point:

• Article III standing must be established when appealing a post grant PTAB decision, such as an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post Grant Review (PGR).

Ingenico Inc. v. Ioengine, LLC, No. 23-1367 (May 7, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 9,059,969 and 9,774,703

Key point:

• IPR estoppel does not prevent a petitioner from asserting different grounds that could not have been brought in the IPR, even if these different grounds may involve the same art that was raised in the IPR.

Aviation Capital Partners, LLC, v. SH Advisors, No. 2024-1099, (May 6, 2025) (non-precedential); Patent No. US Patent 10,956,988

Key point:

• Lack of preemption of an abstract idea (e.g., due to specificity of the claim) does not, in itself, prove patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In re Kostic, No. 2023-1437 (May 6, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); US Patent No. 8,494,950

Key point:

• The actual claim language dictates whether a proposed reissue is a broadening reissue – and not the inventor’s intended scope (despite mistake).

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Nos. 2024-2277, 2024-2274, 2024-2278 (May 6, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent No. 11,147,782

Key point(s):

• Permanent injunctions in patent cases should be limited to the particularly adjudicated infringing activity.
• For pharmaceutical inventions, district courts should ensure careful compliance with the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor provisions (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)) when issuing injunctions.