Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 24-1253 (October 21, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,417,377

Key points:

• The Federal Circuit applies a two-part test for determining if steps that do not otherwise recite an order must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written: whether the claim language determines an order as a matter of logic or grammar, and, if not, whether the specification directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.
• When an apparatus claim includes functional language requiring that the communication module be configured to do certain things, it is improper to disregard language concerning how (e.g., the order in which) it must do them.

Centripetal Networks LCC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027 (October 22, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,917,856

Key points:

• An APJ’s ownership of less than $15,000 of stock did not merit recusal.

In re X-Fab Semiconductor Foundries GMBH, No. 24-1337 (October 22, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent Application No. 15/648,728

Key points:

• An argument is forfeited if appellant failed to raise it before the Board.
• An argument argued only in the most superficial manner may also be forfeit.

House v. General Electric Company, No. 25-1294 (October 22, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,140,873

Key points:

• It is well established that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial only where a plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue of fact.

Nera Innovations Limited v. Squires, No. 24-1079 (October 24, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,825,537

Key points:

• Embodiments in the specification cannot be used to rewrite the claim language.
• In a proper obviousness analysis, the Board must set forth a motivation to combine that is supported by substantial evidence and may not rely on the mere fact that the elements existed in the prior art.