As we close 2025, several Federal Circuit decisions shaped the landscape of patent licensing, with implications for businesses navigating intellectual property agreements. These rulings addressed key issues such as royalty calculations, standing in patent disputes, and the enforceability of patents, providing critical guidance for companies involved in patent licensing.

One of the most impactful decisions was in Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 156 F.4th 1289 (Fed. Cir.), where the Federal Circuit emphasized the importance of using reliable methodologies for calculating reasonable royalty damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Here Rex Medical sued Intuitive Surgical for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,439,650. The district court excluded Rex's damages expert from testifying about a $10 million Covidien license that covered multiple patents. The jury found infringement and awarded $10 million in damages. The district court reduced the award to $1 in nominal damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed exclusion of the patentee’s damages expert for failing to apportion value among multiple patents bundled in a comparable license.  The court reiterated that parties relying on comparable license agreements must account for differences in technologies and economic circumstances. Additionally, expert testimony was deemed inadmissible if it failed to allocate license fees among the licensed patents covered by an agreement. This decision underscores the need for businesses to ensure that their licensing agreements and expert analyses are meticulously prepared to withstand judicial scrutiny.  Licensors and licensees should expect intensified scrutiny of “comparable license” methodologies and insist on explicit, asset‑level economics evaluating field‑of‑use splits, patent‑by‑patent allocations, and contemporaneous valuation records, to preserve reliable apportionment evidence if litigation ensues. When a comparator aggregates multiple assets, experts must make principled economic adjustments on such items, or damages exposure and recoveries alike risk collapsing to nominal figures.

Another notable case, Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24953 (Fed. Cir.), addressed the issue of standing in patent disputes. Blackhawk owns U.S. Patent No. 9,865,135 for pre-printed lottery tickets systems.  InComm petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-6. The PTAB found the claims were not unpatentable.  InComm provided similar systems until approximately March 2025.  InComm and Blackhawk previously entered settlement discussions in which In-Comm requested a covenant not to sue for infringing the '135 patent.  Blackhawk provided covenants not to sue covering all of InComm's identified past activities.  InComm made no showing of concrete plans for future potentially infringing activities. The Federal Circuit ruled that a covenant not to sue, covering all identified past activities, eliminated InComm's standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding the claims of the patent. The court also clarified that potential estoppel effects alone are insufficient to establish standing. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the scope and implications of covenants not to sue in licensing agreements and litigation strategies . A covenant resolving past conduct can neutralize an adversary’s standing to appeal from the PTAB, but broad language may also curtail leverage against future activities; likewise, license‑adjacent covenants should be aligned with ongoing product roadmaps to avoid unintended jurisdictional outcomes. Estoppel alone will not rescue standing, so license and settlement architects should weigh whether, and how far, a covenant extends.

In MemoryWeb, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 31723 (Fed. Cir.), the Federal Circuit dealt with the unpatentability of claims due to obviousness. MemoryWeb owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,423,658 and 10,621,228 related to organizing digital imagery. Samsung and Apple each requested IPRs of these patents. The Board found various claims unpatentable in all IPRs. MemoryWeb appealed both sets of decisions. In the Apple appeal, MemoryWeb failed to brief challenges to certain claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability of the remaining challenged claims in the Apple appeal.  The court dismissed MemoryWeb's appeal in the Samsung case as moot, as it failed to appeal unfavorable patentability determinations in the Apple IPR decision.  This case illustrates the critical need for businesses to comprehensively address all aspects of patentability challenges to avoid losing rights through procedural missteps.  Choices made in one appeal, such as forgoing challenges to specific claims, can foreclose arguments in another proceeding and leave unpatentability findings intact. Portfolio‑level case management should anticipate cross‑matter preclusion risks, align briefing across petitioners,

These decisions collectively emphasize the importance of precision in drafting licensing agreements, conducting thorough due diligence, and ensuring compliance with legal standards in patent disputes. For clients, these rulings highlight the need to engage experienced counsel to navigate the complexities of patent licensing and litigation effectively. Businesses should also consider revisiting their existing agreements and litigation strategies in light of these developments to mitigate risks and maximize the value of their intellectual property portfolios.