O.F. MOSSBERG & SONS, INC. v. TIMNEY TRIGGERS, LLC
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Summary: A stay, followed by a voluntary dismissal, is not a final court decision capable of establishing the judicial imprimatur required for a litigant to emerge as the prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

NEVRO CORPORATION v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Summary: Functional claim term directed at avoiding a side effect is sufficiently definite, despite infringement being determinable only after using the device or system.

NIKE, INC. v. ADIDAS AG
Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may sua sponte identify a patentability issue for a proposed substitute claim based on the prior art of record, but must provide notice and an opportunity for the parties to respond before issuing a final decision.

TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODS., INC. V. LIGHTING SCIENCE GRP CORP.
Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll; Appeal from the P.T.A.B.

Summary: A term with a narrow antecedent basis in an open ended claim may allow a wider range of prior art references to anticipate.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTL. v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Summary: Prior art ranges for solutions of structurally and functionally similar compounds that overlap with a claimed range can establish a prima facie case of obviousness.

In Re FORNEY INDUSTRIES, INC.
Before Dyk, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: Multi-colored marks may be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging.

BASF CORPORATION v. SNF HOLDING COMPANY
Before Lourie, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Summary: A third party’s sale of products made by a secret process may not create a bar to another inventor patenting the process under pre-AIA § 102, unless the essential features of the claimed process are embodied in a product sold or offered for sale before the critical date.

KEITH MANUFACTURING CO. v. BUTTERFIELD

Before Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Summary: A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a) does not preclude consideration of attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d).

MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BLEPHEX, LLC

Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Summary: Enjoining a patentee from making statements about potential patent infringement requires a finding of bad faith.

ARTHREX, INC. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
Before Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Petition for rehearing en banc of a panel decision of an appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board.

Summary: A judicial fix to a constitutional infirmity of a statute was proper when the solution solved the constitutional problem while preserving the remainder of the statute and minimizing disruption to the system set up by the statute. A prospective judicial fix does not remedy past harm, and granting a new hearing was an appropriate remedy for cases that remain open.