The UPC Marks the Edge of Its Own Jurisdiction in Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk

In a procedural order dated October 22, 2026, the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) delivered a short ruling in Sandoz v. Novo Nordisk (UPC_CFI_2221/2026) that deserves more attention than its procedural posture suggests. The operative holding is a single sentence: the UPC has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim seeking a declaration that a composition, independently of a specific patent right, was obvious at a given priority date. Behind that line sits a question the court will keep meeting as it matures: what, exactly, is this court for, and where does its competence stop?

OpenAI Touts Briefs Backing Fair Use for AI Training

OpenAI published a post on Friday, titled “Fair use benefits everyone,” featuring excerpts from 20 filings that urge the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to find that training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted works is fair use. All but one are amicus briefs filed on or before the October 30 deadline in In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, the multidistrict litigation (MDL) that combines copyright lawsuits filed against OpenAI and Microsoft by The New York Times and other news publishers, Ziff Davis, and a group of authors, led by the Authors Guild, seeking to proceed as a class.

Six Months of Patent Owner Pre-Order Statements in Ex Parte Reexamination

Since April 5, 2026, a patent owner can file a paper opposing a request for ex parte reexamination (EPR) before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decides whether to order it. Six months in, patent owners use the paper in about two of every five requests, requesters try to respond in most of those, and the Office keeps almost every response out. None of it has measurably changed how often reexamination is ordered. The order rate was already falling before the procedure began, and the small further decline since is not statistically significant.

CAFC Reverses $9.1 Million Exceptionality Award, Holding Myriad Did Not Foreclose Patent Owner’s 101 Argument

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday reversed a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Elysium Health, Inc., holding that the lower court erred in assessing the substantive strength of ChromaDex’s Section 101 position. The appeal is rooted in the CAFC’s 2023 decision affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment for Elysium Health that the asserted claims of ChromaDex’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 were directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101.

Federal Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for Sonos in Google Patent Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., affirming a summary judgment of non-infringement entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The CAFC agreed with the district court’s constructions of the claim terms “utilized” and “private key,” each of which resolved one of Google’s two infringement theories.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 30: CAFC Reverses Attorney’s Fee Award in Section 101 Case; IFFRO Releases Study on AI’s Negative Impacts on Creators; and Fifth Circuit Reverses Patent Agreement Production Order to UPC

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit reverses an exceptionality determination after finding that the patent owner raised Section 101 arguments requiring more than a simple application of Myriad; the Seventh Circuit rules that copyright ownership to a compilation of unpublished psychotherapy articles cannot prevent the otherwise authorized publication of a single article included within the compilation; and more.

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Unpatentability Finding for Palo Alto Networks

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that held certain claims of a patent for network intrusion monitoring and detection unpatentable as obvious. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen. U.S. Patent No. 7,895,641 is owned by BT Americas (BTA). Palo Alto Networks, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘641 patent, and the PTAB ultimately determined claims 1–7 and 15–17 would have been obvious in view of two prior art references.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates