Patent CourtU.S. patent litigation reference

A working reference to U.S. patent litigation.

Doctrine, landmark cases, court-by-court practice, and procedure — written for litigators, in‑house counsel, and serious students. Every page cites to primary authority. No paywall. No advertising. An independent reference — not a court and not legal advice.

55 entries Cited to U.S.C., F.3d, U.S. Reports Updated quarterly

Substantive doctrine

The core legal rules that decide who wins a patent case: how claims are read, what counts as infringement, and what makes a patent valid or invalid.

12 entries
Claim construction (Markman)35 U.S.C. § 112; Phillips v. AWH Literal infringement35 U.S.C. § 271(a) Doctrine of equivalentsWarner-Jenkinson; Festo Direct infringement35 U.S.C. § 271(a) Induced and contributory infringement35 U.S.C. § 271(b)–(c) Contributory infringement35 U.S.C. § 271(c); Aro II All-elements ruleWarner-Jenkinson; Pennwalt Subject matter eligibility35 U.S.C. § 101; Alice; Mayo Anticipation35 U.S.C. § 102 Obviousness35 U.S.C. § 103; KSR; Graham Written description and enablement35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Definiteness35 U.S.C. § 112(b); Nautilus

Defenses and validity challenges

Equitable and statutory bars to enforcement, plus the prosecution-related limits on claim scope.

5 entries
Inequitable conductTherasense v. Becton Dickinson Prosecution history estoppelFesto Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku On-sale bar35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); Helsinn Public use bar35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Patent exhaustionImpression Products v. Lexmark

Damages and remedies

What a successful patentee can recover, and when an infringer's conduct triggers enhancement, fees, or an injunction.

5 entries
Reasonable royalty35 U.S.C. § 284; Georgia-Pacific Lost profitsPanduit Corp. v. Stahlin Willfulness and enhanced damages35 U.S.C. § 284; Halo Attorneys' fees — exceptional case35 U.S.C. § 285; Octane Fitness Permanent injunctionseBay v. MercExchange

Procedure

How a patent case actually moves: claim construction hearings, discovery practice, expert testimony, venue, standing, ITC, and appeal.

9 entries
Markman hearingsMarkman v. Westview Patent venue28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); TC Heartland Local patent rules comparedEDTX · NDCA · Delaware · WDTX Eastern District of Texas Patent RulesP.R. 3-1, 3-3, 4-1 to 4-6 N.D. Cal. Patent Local RulesPatent L.R. 3-1 to 4-6 Patent discoveryFRCP 26; local patent rules Standing in patent casesLone Star Silicon Innovations ITC Section 337 investigations19 U.S.C. § 1337 Federal Circuit appeals28 U.S.C. § 1295

PTAB and post-grant proceedings

The administrative side: how AIA trials work, what they reach, and how they interact with district-court litigation.

5 entries
Inter partes review (IPR)35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 Post-grant review (PGR)35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329 IPR estoppel35 U.S.C. § 315(e) PTAB trial procedure37 C.F.R. Part 42 IPR timeline35 U.S.C. §§ 314–319; 37 C.F.R. § 90.3

Courts and venues

What practitioners need to know about the districts where most patent cases live, and the appellate court that decides them all.

5 entries
Eastern District of TexasTyler · Marshall · Sherman Western District of Texas (Waco)Judge Albright District of DelawareWilmington Northern District of CaliforniaSan Francisco · San Jose U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitWashington, D.C.

Landmark cases

Each case page summarizes the holding, the facts, the doctrinal framework it produced, and how lower courts have applied it since.

9 entries
517 U.S. 370 (1996)

Markman v. Westview Instruments

Claim construction is a question of law for the court, not the jury. The decision that gave its name to every claim-construction hearing since.

415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)

Phillips v. AWH Corp.

The Federal Circuit's controlling framework for how to read patent claims: intrinsic evidence first, with the specification as the single best guide.

383 U.S. 1 (1966)

Graham v. John Deere Co.

The Supreme Court's first full reading of § 103 and the source of the four Graham factors that still structure every obviousness analysis.

550 U.S. 398 (2007)

KSR International v. Teleflex

Reset the obviousness inquiry under § 103, rejecting the rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" test in favor of a flexible, common-sense approach.

547 U.S. 388 (2006)

eBay v. MercExchange

Ended automatic injunctions on a finding of infringement. A patentee must satisfy the traditional four-factor equitable test like any other litigant.

573 U.S. 208 (2014)

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

The two-step framework for § 101 eligibility that has reshaped — and unsettled — software and business-method patent law for over a decade.

581 U.S. 258 (2017)

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods

Re-narrowed patent venue under § 1400(b) to a domestic corporation's state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business.

572 U.S. 545 (2014)

Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness

Loosened the standard for awarding attorneys' fees under § 285. An "exceptional" case is simply one that stands out from others on the totality of circumstances.

579 U.S. 93 (2016)

Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics

Replaced the rigid Seagate framework for enhanced damages with a discretionary, totality-of-circumstances inquiry focused on the infringer's subjective conduct.

Reference

Definitions, statutory framework, and the standards of review the Federal Circuit applies on appeal.

5 entries
Glossary of patent litigation termsA–Z, ~150 entries Patent Act statutory frameworkTitle 35, U.S. Code Federal Circuit standards of reviewde novo · clear error · abuse of discretion Which court hears patent cases?28 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 1295 Supreme Court § 101 casesBenson to Alice