Zhejiang Medicine Co., Ltd. v. Kaneka Corp., No. 2016-1390 (January 23, 2017) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 7,910,340

Key point(s):

• At the summary judgment stage, parties need not illustrate the most persuasive way toshow infringement, but merely need to present evidence that would lead a reasonable jury to find for the moving party
• Courts cannot add additional limitations to a claim during construction

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corporation, No. 2016-1410 (January 24, 2017) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 9,051,066

Key point(s):

• A preliminary injunction may remain in place despite institution of parallel proceedings before the PTAB
• Objections to a lack of claim construction does not preserve for appeal arguments regarding claim definiteness
• Without evidence of motivation to combine disparate references, it is not clearly erroneous for a trial court to reject an obviousness argument based on disparate references

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Nos. 2016-2713, 2017-1220 (January 25, 2017) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 7,224,275

Key point(s):

• District courts cannot interpret claims to include limitations that render other claims inoperable or limitations that are not supported by the specification and prosecution history

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., No. 2015-1406 (January 25, 2017) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 5,474,142

Key point(s):

• Because the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a patent infringement suit, the district court could not rule on invalidity and noninfringement

In re Jennifer Schweickert, No. 2016-1266 (January 26, 2017) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 7,574,272

Key point(s):

• Speculation that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine references without any rationale for the combination is not sufficient for a finding of obviousness

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC et al., Nos. 2016-1155, 2016-1259 (January 26, 2017) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 8,399,445

Key point(s):

• A request for a scientific justification for the inclusion of a substance in a solution, taken alone, is not sufficient to show conception of an invention directed to the solution lacking that substance
• Prior art that teaches that a substance is required in a solution does not render obvious claims directed to the solution without the identified substance