Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – January 2026

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/.

Monday, January 5, 2026, 10:00 A.M.

Trustees of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc., No. 24-1243 & 1244, Courtroom 201, Panel A

The decade-long patent infringement battle between Columbia University and Gen Digital (Norton) returns once again to the Federal Circuit. Columbia sued Norton for infringing its antivirus patents and for fraudulently claiming sole inventorship of a patent that certain Columbia professors co-invented. The district court found Norton willfully infringed two Columbia patents, and it awarded nearly $300 million in enhanced damages, plus attorneys’ fees. The court also disqualified Norton’s former counsel, Quinn Emanuel, finding that the firm had a conflict of interest in representing both Norton and a former Norton employee (Dacier), who had made statements potentially harmful to Norton’s case, and that Quinn prevented him from testifying. After Quinn failed to comply with an order to disclose information Quinn obtained from Dacier, the court held Quinn in contempt. Norton and Quinn both appealed.

On appeal, Norton challenges the district court’s patent eligibility finding, its infringement and willfulness findings, damages involving Norton’s foreign sales, and the enhanced damages plus fees award. On the enhanced damages and fees award, Norton argues that the evidence (including Norton’s knowledge of Columbia’s technology and post-suit activities) was insufficient to support willfulness or enhancement. Norton also argues that the district court erred in analyzing the Read enhancement-damages factors because it heavily relied on Quinn’s litigation conduct relating to the separate inventorship claim (irrelevant to infringement), and it improperly weighed the other eight factors.

Quinn appeals the district court’s contempt findings. As a threshold matter, Quinn argues that the district court erred in finding any conflict of interest in Quinn’s simultaneous representation of Norton and its former employee Dacier. Quinn also contends the court erred in ordering Quinn to disclose information from Dacier because it was protected under attorney-client privilege. Additionally, Quinn asserts that the court committed various procedural and due-process errors, including sua sponte raising the conflict issue.

Columbia responds that the district court correctly found its patents valid and willfully infringed. It argues that the court properly awarded enhanced damages based on all Read factors, including evidence of Norton’s copying. Regarding Quinn, Columbia argues that the court did not abuse its discretion in holding Quinn in contempt based on its failure to comply with the court’s order and its conduct relating to Dacier. Columbia also argues that Quinn’s privilege argument fails because, among other reasons, an ethical conflict prevented Quinn’s simultaneous representation of Dacier, so there was no true attorney-client relationship and hence no privilege.

Tuesday, January 6, 2026, 10:00 A.M.

Orange Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Autel Intelligent Technology Corp., Ltd., No. 24-1876, Courtroom 201, Panel C

This case addresses the issue of whether a foreign company’s transactions with its U.S. subsidiary constitute an infringing sale, offer for sale, or importation. Orange sued Autel, a Chinese company, for infringing its patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,031,064 C3) related to tire pressure sensors. Autel makes the accused products in China and then sells and ships them to its U.S. subsidiary, Autel U.S., via FOB China. The jury found the asserted claims were not invalid and that Autel infringed.

The district court overturned the jury’s infringement finding and held that Autel did not sell, offer to sell, or import the accused products into the United States. In determining whether the sales occurred in the United States, the court applied the test the Federal Circuit outlined in Halo, which determines the location of a sale based on where substantial activities of the transaction occur, including the final formation of a sales contract and delivery and performance under it. The parties cross appealed.

On appeal, among other issues, the parties dispute whether Autel’s sales to Autel U.S. constitute sales in the United States and whether the district court correctly applied caselaw. Orange contends that substantial evidence supported the jury’s infringement finding, including evidence showing Autel U.S. is a U.S. customer and that Autel knows and intends for its products to be sold in the United States. Orange argues that the district court erred in considering only the FOB terms and title transfer in China. According to Orange, unlike precedents, including Halo, where a defendant sold to a true foreign intermediary who then resold the products into the United States, here Autel directly sold and shipped products to Autel U.S., a U.S. customer. As support, Orange points to sales and shipping documentation (such as sales contracts, invoices, and packing lists) designating Autel U.S. as the buyer and the United States as the destination.

Autel counters that, as the district court found, its activities relating to the sales occurred outside of the United States, including Autel’s signing of the distribution agreement and delivery of the products. Autel stresses that the products were shipped FOB to Autel U.S. at Chinese ports, and that intent or knowledge that the products would enter the U.S. is not enough to find direct infringement under § 271(a). Additionally, Autel points out that only its own activities are relevant to direct infringement and Autel U.S., a separate corporate entity, is a non-party.