APPLE INC. v. ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: An IPR petitioner relying on a prior-art algorithm is not required to discuss all potential permutations in its petition, and does not raise “new arguments” on reply by disclosing a different example of the same algorithm.

CHEETAH OMNI LLC v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.

Before Lourie, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Summary: The express license of a patent includes an implied license for its continuations, including continuations of continuations, because they disclose the same inventions as the licensed patent.

HVLPO2, LLC v. OXYGEN FROG, LLC

Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Summary: It is an abuse of discretion to permit a witness to testify as an expert on issues of noninfringement or invalidity unless that witness is qualified as an expert in the relevant art.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP.
Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may not cancel claims on the grounds of indefiniteness in an IPR proceeding.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC
Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board can rely on general knowledge of a skilled artisan as of the priority date in evaluating obviousness.

USAA filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Wells Fargo, alleging widespread infringement of USAA’s patented technologies on remote check deposits for mobile banking systems. Last November, a jury in a first case found that Wells Fargo willfully infringed some asserted patents and awarded $200 million in damages.

EKO BRANDS, LLC V. ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ ENTERPRISES, INC. ET. AL.

Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Reyna dissenting in part. Appeal from the Western District of Washington

Summary: A litigation position that survives summary judgment does not conclusively establish the position was objectively reasonable for purposes of deciding whether the case was “exceptional.”

PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC v. CBS CORPORATION
Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary: The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of a PTAB’s final written decision of unpatentability. The Federal Circuit does not have jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the PTAB’s decision, through an indirect appeal from the district court’s adoption of the PTAB’s decision.

GENENTECH, INC. v. HOSPIRA, INC.
Before Prost, Newman, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Prior art disclosing a temperature range that partially overlaps with the claimed temperature range, establishes a prima facie case of anticipation and obviousness even if the overlap is slight. Also, IPR proceedings apply even to pre-AIA patents.

MOLON MOTOR AND COIL CORP. v. NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Summary: In interpreting an integration clause that nullifies all prior agreements on the same subject matter, the court will look at factors such as type of license, scope of market, number of patents, and types of products, to determine what is the same subject matter.