Opinions — Tuesday, May 5, 2026

In Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2024-00460 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) based on the parties' agreement. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.

The Federal Circuit granted a joint motion to remand consolidated appeals in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc., where the parties had settled all claims between them. The district court issued an indicative ruling stating it would vacate its March 13, 2024 final judgment and enter a consent judgment upon remand.

The court remanded without taking a position on whether vacatur was proper or necessary, explicitly directing the district court to apply the principles from United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership when deciding whether to vacate its prior judgment. This approach preserves the district court's discretion to evaluate the settlement-related vacatur request under the Bancorp framework, which governs when judgments should be vacated following voluntary settlement rather than adjudication on the merits.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California's dismissal of TJTM Technologies' infringement suit against Google concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853, which relates to suppressing mobile device notifications when paired with a vehicle to prevent distracted driving. The district court granted Google's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the asserted claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after applying the two-step Alice framework.

The court's application is notable for its treatment of what constitutes a "technological improvement" at Alice step one and the sufficiency of pleading an inventive concept at step two on a motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit rejected TJTM's argument that automatically placing a phone in inactive mode when paired with a vehicle solved a technological problem, holding that the claim merely recited a different mode of operation without changing underlying mobile phone technology—distinguishing cases like Enfish where claims addressed specific improvements to computer functionality itself. At step two, the court affirmed that TJTM's allegations amounted to nothing more than conclusory assertions, holding that applying the abstract idea of notification suppression to the particular technological environment of a vehicle-paired phone was insufficient, even at the pleading stage, citing Trinity Info Media for the proposition that conclusory statements cannot defeat a 12(b)(6) motion on eligibility grounds.