ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Northern District of California.

Summary: Use of a natural phenomenon in a method of preparation claim found patent eligible under § 101.

HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

Before Newman, Chen, and Stoll. Opinion filed per curiam. Appeal from the Southern District of West Virginia.

Summary: Objections to jury instructions should be timely made at trial in order to be preserved for appeal at the Federal Circuit.

KAKEN PHARMCEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH HEALTH COMPLAINTS INC., V. ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE MARK OFFICE

Judges: Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Summary: A statement of purpose in the specification and statements made to overcome a rejection during prosecution may justify a narrow claim construction.

COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC. V. CONTEC, LLC

Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Wallach. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Summary: Filing a declaratory judgment action in the midst of ongoing licensing negotiations may justify deviation from the “first-to-file” rule in favor of a later filed lawsuit.

PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATION, LLC v. APPLE INC

Before Reyna, Taranto and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Prosecution history evidence need not rise to the level of disclaimer to inform the meaning of disputed claim limitations.

CUSTOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, DISH NETWORK LLC.

Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Claims directed towards an abstract idea are ineligible even though the claims included features that improved computer speed and efficiency.

GS CLEANTECH CORP. v. ADKINS ENERGY LLC
Before, Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Summary: Withholding and obscuring evidence of a pre-critical date offer for sale renders a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

ARCTIC CAT INC. V. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODS. INC.

Before Lourie, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Southern District of Florida.

Summary: To recover pre-complaint damages for infringement after sales of unmarked products have occurs a patentee must begin marking its products or provide actual notice to an alleged infringer—neither a finding of willful infringement nor ceasing the sale of unmarked products is sufficient.

A Delaware jury has awarded Wasica Finance over $31 million in patent damages against Schrader Int’l. In 2013, Wasica accused Schrader Int’l of infringing a patent entitled “Device for Monitoring and the Air-Pressure in Pneumatic Tires Fitted on Vehicle Wheels,” based on Schrader’s sales of tire pressure sensors used by numerous automobile manufacturers.

SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING, LLC V. CASPER SLEEP INC

Before Dyk, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the Southern District of New York.

Summary: A binding settlement agreement generally moots an action, even if the agreement requires future performance by the parties.