Litigation Update | April 2026

Why It Matters

These rulings tighten procedural timelines and expand prior‑art defenses, forcing IP litigators to adjust filing strategies and compliance practices. The Schedule A insights signal growing regulatory focus on cross‑border e‑commerce infringement.

Key Takeaways

• Voluntary dismissal doesn't restart stay deadline in ITC cases
• Patent disclosures defeat trade‑secret protection under CUTSA
• Factual stipulations can shape discovery and summary‑judgment outcomes
• Undisclosed product functionality still triggers on‑sale bar
• Omitted inventor notice bars correction under § 256(b)

Pulse Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s clarification that a voluntary dismissal does not restart the 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2) stay deadline reshapes how parties approach International Trade Commission (ITC) disputes. Practitioners can no longer rely on a fresh filing to buy extra time for a district‑court stay, compelling earlier strategic coordination between the ITC and federal courts. This decision also underscores the court’s emphasis on procedural fidelity, warning that missed deadlines may leave respondents exposed to exclusion orders without the protective shield of a stay. Companies must now integrate stay‑deadline tracking into their broader IP enforcement calendars.

Other rulings in the update broaden the defensive toolkit for patent owners. The Federal Circuit affirmed that any information disclosed in a patent renders the same subject matter ineligible for trade‑secret protection under the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Trade‑Secret Act (CUTSA), effectively closing a loophole that some firms exploited. Meanwhile, the court upheld the use of factual stipulations to streamline discovery and even reverse summary‑judgment outcomes, while also confirming that an on‑sale bar can arise from a third‑party sale lacking public functionality disclosure. A separate opinion clarified that inventorship corrections require formal notice under § 256(b), reinforcing strict compliance.

Beyond case law, Knobbe Martens’ analysis of Schedule A litigation reveals a surge in actions targeting foreign e‑commerce sellers who infringe U.S. intellectual‑property rights. The report notes that plaintiffs are increasingly leveraging the “notice‑and‑takedown” framework to compel platforms to remove infringing listings, a trend that dovetails with heightened scrutiny from the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For businesses operating globally, the convergence of these procedural rulings and enforcement tactics signals a need for proactive IP audits, robust licensing strategies, and vigilant monitoring of online marketplaces to mitigate exposure.