⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears a patent dispute over automated fireworks firing systems. Titan International Technologies sued Cobra Firing Systems and Phantom Fireworks in Nevada, alleging that sales of the Ignite i18 and i36 systems infringed two of its patents. Titan submitted its inventor's declaration, product pictures, and evidence of Cobra-branded wires used with the accused systems. The district judge found insufficient evidence that either named defendant sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing products, and entered summary judgment for both. Summary judgment resolves a case without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact remains and the law entitles one side to win. The key distinction here is between evidence that a product infringes and evidence connecting that product to the defendant being sued. The blue brief they mention is Titan's opening written argument on appeal. The judges also distinguish direct infringement from contributory infringement, a separate theory for supplying certain components used in infringement; Titan pleaded direct infringement. The Supreme Court's Celotex decision allows a defendant to identify a missing essential element of the plaintiff's proof, rather than always supplying evidence disproving the claim; the defendant still must support its motion. Rule fifty-six also allows a party to explain why it needs discovery to obtain essential evidence, rather than treating every request for discovery as automatically sufficient. Patrick Bright represents Titan and will argue that its inventor's evidence was enough to keep the infringement claims alive.

Titan International Technologies, Ltd. v. Cobra Firing Systems, LLC (No. 25-1950) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026.