FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of AML IP Suit Against Bath & Body Works Direct

The appeals court upheld a district court ruling that dismissed the patent case on both improper venue and patent eligibility grounds.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 4:33 p.m. ET
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of a patent lawsuit brought by AML IP against Bath & Body Works Direct, according to the National Law Review. The case, No. 2025-1280, was a matter heard on appeal. AML IP sued Bath & Body Works Direct in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of a patent directed to e-commerce methods, the National Law Review reported. The Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decide a Rule 12(b)(6) patent eligibility challenge after first determining that venue was improper, according to the National Law Review. The dismissal was affirmed on both improper venue and patent eligibility grounds.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 20:33current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.