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.

HOSPIRA, INC. V. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Summary: Evidence of the properties of claimed embodiments may be proper evidence of inherency, even when the evidence itself is not prior art.

Amgen, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmas. LLC et al

Before Newman, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Summary: An examiner amendment may give rise to prosecution history estoppel, even when the examiner suggests the amendment in the absence of a pending office action.

On December 11, 2019, the PTAB designated two additional decisions as “informative.” Such informative decisions are not binding on subsequent panels, but are meant to provide guidance on recurring issues encountered by PTAB panels in post-grant proceedings. Here, both of the newly designated decisions—one a Decision on Institution and the other a Final Written Decision—provide guidance to petitioners on their obligation to set forth in the petition a well-developed rationale for combining prior art references as part of an obviousness combination.