In Case No. 24-1669, decided February 9, 2026, the appellate court reviewed a dispute involving intellectual property rights and the proper interpretation of the asserted patent claims. The court examined the district court’s claim construction and its rulings on infringement and related defenses, focusing on the intrinsic record, including the patent specification and prosecution history.

The court determined that the lower court erred in key aspects of its claim interpretation, concluding that certain disputed terms were construed too broadly or inconsistently with the patent’s written description. Under the correct construction, the record did not support the prior infringement finding, and further proceedings were required.

The court also addressed procedural challenges, including evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. Although some arguments were rejected, the claim construction error was found to be material and outcome determinative, resulting in vacatur in part and remand for reconsideration under the clarified standard.