Pay up, per Party Litigation Stipulation

Why It Matters

The ruling clarifies that parties’ infringement‑related stipulations can override extraterritoriality defenses and tightens the standards for invoking prosecution‑disclaimer arguments, affecting future patent litigation strategy.

Key Takeaways

• Federal Circuit rejected extraterritoriality defense based on 70% US nexus stipulation
• Court reinstated doctrine of equivalents for apparatus claims lacking clear disclaimer
• Damages expert’s net present value theory struck as insufficiently disclosed
• Stipulations can bind infringement analysis even if later deemed imprudent
• Ruling narrows courts’ reliance on prosecution statements as claim limitations

Pulse Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s April 2026 opinion in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp. marks a pivotal shift in how courts treat geographic‑nexus stipulations in patent infringement cases. By honoring a 70% U.S. nexus agreement, the court signaled that parties can contractually define the domestic scope of a claim, even when the underlying technology operates globally. This approach curtails the traditional extraterritoriality defense, compelling defendants to consider stipulated domestic thresholds when evaluating infringement risk.

Equally significant is the court’s reassessment of the doctrine of equivalents and the limits of prosecution‑disclaimer arguments. The panel restored VLSI’s equivalents theory for several apparatus claims, emphasizing that only a clear and unmistakable disclaimer—explicitly conveyed during patent prosecution—can narrow claim scope. Ambiguous statements or informal “upon identifying” language no longer suffice to bar equivalents, raising the evidentiary bar for defendants seeking to limit a patent’s reach based on prosecution history.

On the damages front, the decision upheld the district court’s exclusion of VLSI’s net present value and value‑per‑unit calculations, underscoring the judiciary’s demand for precise, notice‑giving expert testimony. Litigants must now furnish detailed, defensible damage models to survive summary‑judgment attacks. Collectively, these rulings provide clearer guidance for patent owners and challengers, influencing settlement calculations, claim‑drafting strategies, and the tactical use of stipulations in future high‑stakes technology disputes.