1) Premium but free summary: Optis asks Judge Gilstrap for re-re-retrial against Apple — preferably with JMOL on infringement — after recent adverse verdict

Optis is trying a new tack as its looks to revive its damages claim against Apple.

2) Premium but free summary: UPC’s CD Milan revokes Flexicare nasal cannula patent, says one novelty-destroying prior art mapping is enough

The UPC’s CD Milan revoked Flexicare’s unitary patent on a nasal cannula. The court said that if one reasonable way of mapping prior art onto a patent claim shows the invention is not new, the patent must be revoked.

3) Premium but free summary: Malikie, Key Patent Innovations launch wave of multi-patent infringement suits targeting seven companies in U.S., including Hisense, NTT

Non-practising entity Key Patent Innovations and its subsidiaries Malikie Innovations and Valtrus have launched a patent infringement campaign asserting multimedia and datacenter-related patents against seven different companies, including Hisense and NTT Global Data, in the Eastern District of Texas and Northern District of Illinois.

4) Premium but free summary: Licensor’s breach of patent license agreement: Delaware Supreme Court enhances LG’s win over Intellectual Ventures

A Delaware ruling shows how suing a licensee’s customers can create upstream liability through indemnification—and how licensing structures may limit exposure through liability caps.

5) LinkedIn: Long-arm jurisdiction vs. FRAND overreach

At the Fordham IP Conference in NYC, Mr Justice Meade (High Court of Justice for England & Wales) compared the two.

6) LinkedIn: Unanswered questions about UK interim licenses

More from the debate over UK global FRAND determinations and interim licenses.

7) LinkedIn: $10K bet against AI slop

When 10 AI agents determine that a certain window (July/August 2026) is where a major global dispute would be settled and state a confidence level of 68%, professional betting odds would be such that someone successfully betting on the prediction would only make a profit of approx. 40% while the one successfully betting against would have a profit on the order of 200%. ip fray's founder proposed to the facilitator of the AI "analysis" to bet $10K against it.

The AI "analysis" is once again fundamentally flawed. For example, that AI system believes InterDigital and Amazon were close to a settlement at the recent UPC Mannheim hearing. But all they were close to was a procedural agreement regarding antisuit relief. ip fray was in the room (otherwise, only judges, court staff, party representatives, and counsel attended) and knows this for sure.

AI analysis of the multidimensional chess game that is complex high-stakes multi-jurisdictional litigation is less reliable than a horoscope.