⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS

DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (argued September 10, 2026)

No. 25-1263 Argued September 10, 2026 Published September 13, 2026

The Federal Circuit reviews three Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings about patents on displaying internet content outside a conventional web browser. DoDots sued Samsung in 2022, accusing Samsung phones and tablets of infringing three patents. The suit began in West Texas, then the Federal Circuit ordered it transferred to Northern California. Meanwhile, Samsung challenged the patents at the Patent Office, and Apple joined those proceedings. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable, and DoDots appealed. The patents call each display a networked information monitor, or NIM: a configurable frame that retrieves and shows online content. A NIM template supplies the information used to define that frame and its controls. Obviousness asks whether the claimed differences would already have been evident to a skilled practitioner. The appeal turns on claim construction—deciding what the patent's words cover. DoDots says the Board erased three limits: the frame must be fully configurable; the template must define the controls; and a data structure must have structure, not merely data. Samsung and Apple say Brown's earlier system of movable, resizable web-content frames and HTML instructions meets the claims.

DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1263) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1263_09102026.mp3
Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/
September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf
DoDots v. Samsung district-court order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-6_22-cv-00535/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-6_22-cv-00535-0.pdf
Transfer order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-146.ORDER.12-14-2023_2238203.pdf
IPR2023-00701 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554846/download-documents?artifactId=1ljlUUhBr3-34SapkWgS3NQNlR6XcBau_pEjkbrCVhghBvu02IocjIw
IPR2023-00756 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554845/download-documents?artifactId=jPN0g6MEI3moIiYNkZGOu379qLusDqytlztx7br68Dr9VmMBkqqYe5k
Apple joinder in IPR2023-00621 — Patent Trial and Appeal Board:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554844/download-documents?artifactId=sOZOUuES3BLfjP4qmq42epgQcijjJvUk48nDJFm-0nPl4P-sKeAzd_0
35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House of Representatives:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title35-section103
Charles E. Fowler Jr. — McKool Smith:https://www.mckoolsmith.com/professionals-Charles_Fowler
Michael J. Ballanco — Fish & Richardson:https://www.fr.com/team/michael-ballanco/
Consolidated appeal docket — Justia:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1263

0:00
0:00