Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 15, 2026

Why It Matters

The decisions tighten the evidentiary bar for ITC exclusions and IPR institution, signaling that inconsistent claim‑construction strategies will be rejected and shaping litigation tactics across technology and pharmaceutical sectors.

Key Takeaways

• Bissell's redesign avoided infringement; Federal Circuit upheld ITC exclusion
• Actelion lost on claim construction and prosecution‑history estoppel
• mCom's infringement suit dismissed; fee awards upheld as improper
• PTAB denied multiple IPR institutions citing inconsistent claim‑construction positions
• Director emphasized IPRs as efficient alternatives, not litigation back‑doors

Pulse Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s recent affirmations underscore the high evidentiary threshold required to sustain ITC exclusion orders and to prevail on infringement arguments. In Bissell v. ITC, the court rejected a claim‑construction challenge and upheld the finding that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe, reinforcing the principle that plain‑language interpretations prevail when supported by substantial evidence. Similarly, the Actelion decision illustrates how prosecution‑history estoppel and disclosure‑dedication bars can decisively block both literal and equivalent infringement claims, a cautionary tale for patentees seeking to broaden claim scope after amendment. The mCom dismissal further demonstrates the courts’ willingness to enforce fee‑shifting statutes when plaintiffs present weak infringement theories, reminding litigants to craft robust pleadings.

Across the Board, the PTAB Director’s discretionary denials signal a tightening of IPR policy aimed at preserving the inter‑ partes review’s original purpose: a swift, cost‑effective alternative to district‑court battles. By rejecting petitions from Magnolia, Terumo, Ford, and TikTok for presenting divergent claim‑construction positions without adequate explanation, the Director emphasizes consistency and procedural integrity. The rulings reiterate that petitioners must align their arguments across forums or risk having institution vacated, thereby protecting patentees from strategic “second bites” after adverse court outcomes.

For practitioners, these developments highlight a dual imperative: maintain doctrinal consistency in claim interpretation and anticipate heightened scrutiny of evidentiary support in both ITC and IPR contexts. Companies must align their litigation and patent‑prosecution strategies, ensuring that any amendments or arguments made during prosecution are defensible in later enforcement actions. The broader market impact is a more predictable enforcement landscape, where aggressive post‑grant challenges are tempered by procedural safeguards, ultimately encouraging clearer patent drafting and more disciplined litigation tactics.