Opinions — Tuesday, February 10, 2026

In Textor Maschinenbau GmbH v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., the parties stipulated to dismissal of an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2024-00224, which the Federal Circuit granted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs.

In Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., No. 2025-1272, an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2020-01557, the Federal Circuit dismissed the proceeding under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs.

In Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc., appeals nos. 2024-2137 and 2024-2197 from an IPR proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit dismissed the proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties, with each side to bear its own costs.

In Weber Food Technology GmbH v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2024-00235 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' joint agreement. The court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendant MV2, LLC in a dispute concerning Leading Technology Composites' U.S. Patent No. 8,551,598, which relates to armored panels designed to resist edge impact penetrations by ballistic projectiles. The central issue was whether the entire preamble of asserted claim 7—"[a]n armoring panel for resisting edge impact penetrations by ballistic projectiles"—was limiting and, if so, how to construe the "for resisting" language. The district court held the entire preamble limiting and construed "for resisting" to require that edge protection function to resist edge impact penetrations at a level similar to the main body of the panel's resistance to non-edge impacts.

The Federal Circuit's analysis turned on coordination between claim construction and summary judgment procedures. Though the district court adopted a construction neither party had proposed when ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that LTC had adequate notice and opportunity to marshal evidence because MV2's motion put LTC on notice its infringement case could end and included a request to construe the disputed term. The court reaffirmed that district courts may adopt constructions different from those proposed by the parties and may engage in "rolling" construction, including at summary judgment. LTC's minimal evidence—primarily a 2017 email stating MV2's panels add "ballistic protection further out towards the edge"—was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact under the district court's construction, which required comparative edge-versus-main-body resistance levels.