⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a patent dispute over a painter's non-skid drop cloth. The patent describes an absorbent upper layer over a lower layer with downward-projecting bumps. The inventors sued a company over a competing drop cloth, claiming it infringed their patent. The district court ruled for the company after reading the patent to require every smaller-circumference bump to be taller than the larger ones. The inventors could not show that its product met that reading. On appeal, they will argue that this interpretation is too narrow: language inside the claim leaves room for other bump arrangements, even though another phrase limits the cloth's layers. The company will defend the court's reading using the claim language and the patent's examination history. Listen for the difference between comprising and consisting of, and for whether alternative reasons to uphold the judgment were properly raised.

Terracino v. Trimaco, Inc. (No. 25-1808) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 5, 2026.