The following arguments will be available live to the public, both in-person and through online audio streaming. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.
Tuesday, March 3, 2026, 10:00 A.M.
ReCor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co., No. 2025-1998, Courtroom 402, Panel D.
This appeal focuses on Appellant Medtronic Ireland's Article III standing to assert the disputed patents against Appellee Recor following Medtronic Ireland's license agreement with a non-party. Medtronic Ireland owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8,845,629 and 11,801,085, both related to renal denervation (RDN) systems treating high blood pressure. Recor, a competing RDN system manufacturer, filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking to invalidate the '629 patent. Medtronic Ireland counterclaimed for infringement of both patents. Discovery later revealed that, before asserting its counterclaims, Medtronic Ireland licensed to Medtronic Galway ("Galway") certain rights, including the exclusive right to exclude others from making or using the claimed inventions. Recor moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of standing, arguing that Medtronic Ireland lacked sufficient exclusionary rights to demonstrate the requisite injury in fact. The district court agreed and dismissed the counterclaims. Medtronic Ireland appealed.
Medtronic Ireland argues that it has standing because, as the patent owner, it retained multiple exclusionary rights under the license agreement. According to Medtronic Ireland, it retains the right to sue infringers if Galway declines to sue or fails to do so within a reasonable time, to recover damages and royalties, and to veto Galway's sublicensing of the patents. Medtronic Ireland further emphasizes that it retained full ownership of the patents with a reversion of all licensed rights upon termination of the agreement.
Separately, Medtronic Ireland argues that monetary harm—reduced royalties from Galway caused by Recor's infringement—is an injury independently sufficient to give Medtronic Ireland standing. Finally, Medtronic Ireland contends that even if the district court believed standing was deficient, it should have permitted joinder of Galway as a co-plaintiff, rather than dismissing the counterclaims.
In response, Recor argues that none of the rights Medtronic Ireland retained are exclusionary rights sufficient to confer standing. According to Recor, Medtronic Ireland's right to sue is secondary and contingent on Galway's inaction. Additionally, Recor argues that Federal Circuit precedents support that the right to veto sublicenses, the right to collect royalties, and the alleged monetary harm do not independently constitute exclusionary rights. Moreover, even if Medtronic Ireland can retain its full rights after the license terminates, standing is based on status when counterclaims are filed. Finally, Recor argues that the district court properly dismissed the entire case, including counterclaims, because a jurisdictional defect in standing cannot be cured after the suit is initiated.
Tuesday, March 3, 2026, 10:00 A.M.
Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., No. 24-2088, Courtroom 402, Panel D
In a previous appeal, the Federal Circuit announced the "skilled searcher" standard governing inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As a matter of first impression, the Court held that a petitioner is estopped from asserting invalidity grounds based on prior art that a skilled searcher conducting a reasonably diligent search could have been expected to discover at the time the IPR petition was filed, placing the burden of proof on the patent owner as an affirmative defense. The Federal Circuit then vacated the district court's earlier estoppel ruling as to Valve's non‑petitioned grounds, concluding that the district court had improperly placed the burden on Valve and relied on assumptions rather than evidence. In doing so, the Court affirmed a jury verdict of over $4 million for willful infringement of Ironburg's U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525.
On remand, the mandate confined the district court to the estoppel issue under the newly announced skilled searcher standard. For the Kotkin and Koji references, the court emphasized Valve's own pre‑petition search, reasoning that because the relevant patent classifications were searched, a skilled searcher reasonably could have been expected to locate those references—even though the search results were not produced. For the Raymond reference, the court credited an element‑specific, classification‑based search offered by Ironburg's expert as reflecting tools and constraints available at the relevant time. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that Ironburg satisfied its burden to show estoppel applies.
On appeal, Valve argues that the district court misapplied the skilled searcher standard. Valve contends that classification searching alone cannot establish "discovery" of a reference, particularly where a search yields many thousands of results and no evidence shows that a reasonable searcher would have reviewed or understood the relevance of the reference. Valve further argues that the district court relied on hypothetical modifications to search strings unsupported by the record, improperly incorporating hindsight. As to Raymond, Valve maintains that the searches credited by the court were prompted only after the reference was known and therefore cannot reflect reasonable diligence at the relevant time.
Ironburg responds that the district court correctly applied the Federal Circuit's framework by focusing on what a skilled searcher would find, not on whether the searcher would recognize an invalidity combination. Ironburg emphasizes that Valve's own evidence concerning its search methodology supports discoverability of Kotkin and Koji and that its expert evidence demonstrated Raymond could be located using conventional classification‑ and keyword‑based techniques.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
