In re Aylor, No. 2025-1192 (September 8, 2025) (Nonprecedential); Patent Application No. 15/950,246

Key point:

• Failing to include all necessary information for priority in the ADS results in loss of priority and rejection over intervening prior art.

Future Link Sys., v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., Nos. 2023-1056, 2023-1057 (September 9, 2025) (Precedential, 3-0); Patent Nos. 7,917,680, 8,099,614, and 7,685,439

Key point:

• A defendant may still be entitled to seek attorney fees if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a patent infringement suit, if the defendant later deemed to be the prevailing party.

Magema Tech. LLC, v. Phillips 66., No. 2024-1342 (September 8, 2025) (Precedential, 3-0); Patent No. 10,308,884

Key point:

• When a prejudicial error occurs, a new trial is needed if the court cannot tell whether the jury outcome resulted from the prejudicial error or for some other reason.

BJ Energy Sols., LLC, v. Evolution Well Servs., LLC, No. 2023-1056, 2024-1309 (September 12, 2025) (Nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,395,049

Key point(s):

• A prior art combination needs only be a “suitable” option, it does not need to be the “best” option.
• Motivation-to-combine findings are reviewed for “a reasoned explanation to enable [a] review for substantial evidence.”

Dynamite Marketing Inc. v. The Wowline, Inc., Nos. 2024-1523 and 2024-1525 (September 12, 2025) (Nonprecedential); Patent No. D751,877

Key point(s):

• Failure to enter a primary reference into evidence means the finder of fact cannot consider the primary reference.
• A non-party to a correction of inventorship dispute lacked standing to appeal based on the non-party’s role in the case below and the paths available for appellate review