Our Patent Case Summaries provide a weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al.
No. 2024-1102 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) July 2, 2026). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Kovner (sitting by designation).
TrackTime sued Amazon and others for infringement of two patents related to navigating through multimedia files by using a time-correlated transcript. For the first patent, the district court construed two claim limitations—“executable program code configured to facilitate annotation” and “executable program code configured to synchronously play … multimedia”—as means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The court then held the asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness because the specification did not disclose corresponding structure for the claimed functions. For the second patent, a jury found the asserted claim invalid on multiple grounds, including anticipation by a reference called LiveNote, and also found no infringement. The district court denied post-trial motions to set aside the verdict, and TrackTime appealed.
To begin, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the indefiniteness ruling. The court held that further analysis of the § 112(f) issue is warranted in light of its intervening decision in Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit acknowledged the district court’s observation that, standing alone, “executable program code” and “logic” are generic terms that do not connote specific structure. But the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s analysis stopped too soon. Because the terms recite code “configured” to perform specific operations, the proper inquiry asks whether the full recitations would be understood by a relevant artisan to refer to a known class of structures.
The Federal Circuit also faulted the district court for failing to investigate extra-patent usage in the relevant field, which can be “essential to determining whether an alleged means-plus-function phrase, including the recitation of the claimed function, names or describes at least a class of structures sufficient to perform the function.” The appeals court instructed the district court on remand to focus “on whether the disputed limitations, read in full and in context, recite enough structure to perform the claimed functions.”
As to the second patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment based on the jury’s finding that LiveNote anticipates the asserted claim. TrackTime raised three challenges, but one was forfeited and the other two failed because “the record contains sufficient support” for the jury verdict. Because anticipation was dispositive, the court did not reach TrackTime’s remaining challenges. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial, explaining that TrackTime “at most[] identifies a run-of-the-mill contest between experts that was within the competence of the jury to resolve.”
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al. v. Hetero Labs Limited, et al.
No. 2025-2016 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) July 1, 2026). Opinion by Bryson, joined by Stoll. Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part by Dyk.
Otsuka owns a patent covering a method for treating pseudobulbar affect or emotional ability, which is the inability to control emotions exhibited by patients with neurodegenerative diseases or after a stroke or other brain injury. The claimed method involves administering dextromethorphan in combination with quinidine “with the proviso that the weight to weight ratio of dextromethorphan to quinidine is 1:0.5 or less.”
Otsuka’s branded product, Nuedexta, administers those compounds in their salt forms. When generic manufacturer Hetero signaled its intention to launch a competing product, Otsuka filed suit and moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court granted the injunction, finding Otsuka likely to succeed on infringement, but did not require Otsuka to post a bond pending appeal under Rule 65(c) because it found that “the equities weighed strongly in favor of waiving the Rule 65(c) bond.” Hetero appealed.
The central dispute involved the construction of the terms “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” in the weight-to-weight ratio limitation, and specifically the method for calculating the ratio when the drugs are administered in their salt forms. Because both the branded product and Hetero’s competing product administer those compounds in salt form, the question was whether the ratio should be calculated using the total weight of the salt as administered or only the weight of the active moiety within the salt, that is, the free base component.
The Federal Circuit ruled that “a close analysis of the claims and specification of [Otsuka’s] patent leads us to construe those terms as referring to the compounds whether in free base or salt form.” First, certain dependent claims require administration “in a form of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt,” indicating that the salt forms fall within the independent claim’s references to dextromethorphan and quinidine. Second, the specification consistently uses those terms to refer to the salt forms of the compounds, including when reporting clinical study dosages. Third, the prosecution history shows that the examiner understood the terms to include the salt forms. The court further observed that Hetero’s proposed construction would exclude Nuedexta itself from the patent’s claims, which is “highly improbable.”
Applying its construction, the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding Otsuka likely to succeed in proving that Hetero infringed the patent. The Federal Circuit found Hetero’s remaining arguments unpersuasive and thus affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.
The Federal Circuit, however, agreed with Hetero on the bond issue and thus vacated the district court’s waiver of the Rule 65(c) bond requirement. Applying Third Circuit law, the Federal Circuit explained that it is “bound to follow the Third Circuit’s narrow exceptions to Rule 65(c),” noting that the Third Circuit has “never excused a district court from requiring a bond where an injunction prevents commercial, money-making activities.” Here, Hetero’s attempt to launch a competing generic product was clearly such an activity. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to set an appropriate bond amount.
Judge Dyk dissented “from the majority’s claim construction, its conclusion on infringement, and its decision sustaining the preliminary injunction.” In his view, the majority’s construction “is inconsistent with the objective of the invention and is unsupported by the specification and prosecution history.” Judge Dyk explained that “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” are “unambiguous terms that describe very specific compounds with discernible chemical structure,” and the weight-to-weight ratio should be calculated using only the active moiety weight.