Prosecution Pointer 129

A federal court granted Disney's motion to compel arbitration in an antitrust class action, allowing the company to invoke fuboTV's subscriber terms of service after acquiring a 70% stake in the streaming platform. The ruling demonstrates how corporate mergers can fundamentally alter litigation strategy by enabling non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements containing "future affiliates" provisions.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The ruling examines how employers present arbitration agreements to employees and whether workers receive meaningful opportunity to understand terms before signing, with significant implications for class action litigation strategy.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.

Article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees Washington residents access to the courts. That right does not mean that a person has unlimited access.

DigiNovations, Inc. brought a nine-count complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court against its former executive vice president, Wales, former employee Mackos, and the competing company they founded...

A California federal court ruled that plaintiffs cannot avoid arbitration simply by labeling their claims as "sexual harassment." The decision requires plaintiffs to plausibly allege conduct that actually constitutes sexual harassment under governing law before the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act applies. This ruling establishes important limits on attempts to circumvent arbitration agreements through strategic claim labeling.

A federal magistrate judge blocked an employer from distributing a dispute resolution agreement with a class action waiver to settlement class members between preliminary and final approval stages. The court found that despite the agreement's non-coercive language, the timing created unacceptable risks of confusion that could interfere with class members' settlement rights.

A federal judge dismissed a securities fraud class action against former executives of a business communications company, finding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misstatements or establish scienter. The court analyzed allegations concerning revenue projections, financial disclosures, and internal controls during the company's transition from hardware to subscription-based software, ultimately determining that forward-looking statements were protected by safe harbor provisions and that

The Ninth Circuit has amended its opinion in a securities fraud class action against a pop culture collectibles manufacturer, clarifying that the company's risk disclosures improperly framed already-realized harms as hypothetical future risks. The court denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, maintaining its partial reversal of the district court's dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.

Director Squires issued written opinions in two recent PTAB proceedings examining critical threshold questions about prior art qualification. One case explored whether sufficient evidence supported an earlier invention date to antedate prior art, while the other determined if a reference was publicly accessible before the patent's priority date.

The Federal Circuit dismissed a patent owner's appeal in In re Hybir, Inc., ruling that a settlement agreement containing only a nominal $100 optional license tied to the appeal's outcome failed to create a live case or controversy. The court determined that such an arbitrary sum functioned merely as a "side bet" on the appeal rather than representing real economic significance or concrete dispute necessary to sustain federal jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit issued 23 opinions in June and July 2026 reviewing PTAB post-grant proceedings, with affirmance rates varying significantly between the two months. Cumulative statistics through July 31, 2026 reveal patterns in how the appellate court has handled over 1,600 IPR, CBM, and PGR appeals since these proceedings began.

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued its decision in G 1/25, addressing the contentious practice of description amendments in European patent applications. This decision establishes new guidelines on when patent descriptions must be modified to align with claims, potentially reshaping prosecution strategies across Europe. The ruling adopts a middle ground between the EPO's traditional approach requiring extensive amendments and recent case law suggesting such changes lack explici

California regulators brought their first enforcement action against a data broker under both the CCPA and the Delete Act, signaling increased scrutiny of businesses that collect and sell personal information without a direct consumer relationship. The decision makes clear that data minimization applies to consumer rights requests and that companies cannot require consumers to provide more personal information than reasonably necessary to exercise their privacy rights.

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Sixth Circuit's decision in Nelson v. MillerKnoll examines whether a furniture company's ownership claims to the iconic Bubble Lamp design were authorized under a 2006 royalty agreement, and whether the designer's heirs ratified that arrangement by continuing to accept payments. The case hinges on interpreting contract language distinguishing between licensing rights and outright ownership of intellectual property.

When a patent owner grants an exclusive license, does it automatically lose the right to sue infringers? The Federal Circuit addressed this critical question in two parallel cases, examining what retained rights are necessary to preserve constitutional standing. The court's analysis reveals how specific contractual provisions—including sublicense approval authority, royalty rights, and enforcement participation—can determine whether a patent owner maintains a meaningful legal stake in its patent

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancelled over half of instituted claims across IPR and PGR Final Written Decisions from June to July 2026, with significant variation in outcomes across different technology centers. This analysis examines claim survival rates, motion to amend statistics, and per-case disposition patterns compared to cumulative historical averages.