Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case
Contributed by Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
CASE OF THE WEEK
Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appeal Nos. 2024-1381, -1382, -1383 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025)
In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed inter partes review decisions invalidating all challenged claims of three automotive patents owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board had initially declined to institute review, but on petitioner Ford’s request, waited over 15 months to reconsider that decision while the parties appealed a co-pending infringement case against Ford by MIT and its licensee. Among other things, the Court in this appeal rejected appellants’ argument that the Board had impermissibly “stayed” rehearing of Ford’s petition, finding their arguments amounted to little more than a challenge to the propriety of the Board’s institution decision, and thus barred under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (providing institution decisions are not subject to appeal). The Court also affirmed the invalidating decisions on the merits.
MIT’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,619,580, 10,781,760, and 9,708,965 are directed to methods of mitigating “engine knock” in internal combustion engines, and are administered through MIT’s exclusive licensee Ethanol Boosting Systems (EBS). As relevant to this write-up, the patents describe “direct injection” and “port injection” fuel management systems that work in tandem to provide beneficial ratios of fuel to an anti-knock agent at various torque and pressure levels. EBS and MIT sued Ford in October 2020, and Ford responded by filing the IPRs at issue in this appeal. In March 2021, the district court issued its claim construction ruling, agreeing with Ford that the claims require different fuels for the direct and port injection systems. A few months later in July 2021, the PTAB denied institution of Ford’s petitioned IPRs, relying on this narrow, “different fuels” aspect of the district court’s construction.
Editors:
Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder
More insights
PTAB in 2026: What Practitioners Are Getting Wrong
Institution rates have moved, but the reasoning behind them has moved further. The number most petitions still cite is the headline institution rate — and it has not been the operative number for two years. The two stage problem A petition now has to…
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case
Ridge Corp. et al. v. Kirk NationaLease Co. et al. , Appeal No. 2025-1254 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2026) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court…
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP , Appeal No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling reversing a $107.5 million jury verdict against AstraZeneca in a case…