Every decision we've summarized — searchable, filterable, neutral.

May 13 2026
9th Cir. 2:24-cv-03455-MRA-JPR Unpublished

Quaid, Et Al. v. Granet, Et Al.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a land dispute lawsuit. The appellate panel held that the litigation privilege barred privacy claims and that the plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory claim presentation requirements.

May 13 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-1641 Panel Decision

Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Mylan Pharmaceuticals did not infringe Actelion Pharmaceuticals' patents for a stable epoprostenol drug formulation. The court held that the patent claim term requiring a pH of thirteen or higher refers to measurements taken at standard temperature, and that Actelion was barred from asserting infringement by equivalence.

May 13 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-1856 Panel Decision

Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain patent claims unpatentable as obvious. The court upheld the Board's construction of the term protocol and formatting information, rejecting the appellant's narrower interpretation.

May 13 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1712 Panel Decision

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Finelite, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a commercial agreement unambiguously incorporated a full contract of sale. The court held that the agreement's language required the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff for patent infringement claims arising in the United States, despite the contract limiting indemnification to the jurisdiction where title passed.

May 13 2026
9th Cir. 2:24-cv-03455-MRA-JPR Unpublished

Quaid v. Granet

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a land dispute lawsuit involving claims of privacy invasion and slander of title. The court held that litigation privilege barred the tort claims and that the plaintiffs failed to comply with statutory claim presentation requirements.