2025 Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2025 Decisions

This past year was an exciting one at the Federal Circuit. The court’s decision in EcoFactor v. Google — concerning the standard for admissibility of expert testimony on damages — marks its first en banc decision in a utility patent case since 2018. In Lashify v. International Trade Commission, the court clarified the standard an ITC complainant must satisfy to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. In Global Health Solutions v. Selner, the court issued its first decision on review from an America Invents Act (AIA) derivation proceeding. And in Shockwave Medical v. Cardiovascular Systems — the court addressed the thorny issue of how applicant-admitted prior art may be used as part of an obviousness argument in an inter partes review (IPR). This edition of our Federal Circuit review covers these cases and more, canvassing over a dozen of this year’s most impactful decisions in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), district courts, and the ITC.

Turning to the statistics, the number of appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and district courts fell in 2025, continuing a decade-long trend of fewer appeals from these most common origins. Median appeal pendency rose again this year, largely due to increased lag between submission of the joint appendix and calendaring of oral argument.

Appellate results continued to heavily favor appellees in appeals from all fora, especially the USPTO. Overall, the affirmance rate in 2025 was approximately 70%. The court affirmed USPTO decisions at a rate of nearly 80%. Rule 36 affirmance rates were substantially lower this past year (17% in 2025 versus approximately 30% in the years 2020-2024), with a corresponding increase in the rate of both precedential and nonprecedential opinions.

The summaries and statistics in this review are the results of a collaborative process. We want to thank our co-authors for making this publication possible. We appreciate your interest in this report, now in its 10th year. And we encourage you to explore our firm’s other 2025 year-in-review reports, which are available here. Please feel free to reach out if you have questions about this report or wish to discuss the future of Federal Circuit appeals.

Table of Contents

• Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in IPRs
• Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 152 F.4th 1400 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (en banc)
• Global Health Sols. LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• In re Brunetti, 151 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• In re Entresto, 125 F.4th 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
• Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, 136 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 130 F.4th 948 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 125 F.4th 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
• Teva Branded Pharm. Prods. R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. of New York, LLC, 124 F.4th 898 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
• Data and Trends: IP Appeals to the Federal Circuit