TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 2016-1562 (March 21, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,889,168

Key points:

• Claim terms must be construed the same way when determining invalidity and infringement to arrive at a consistent jury verdict.

University of Utah v. Max-Plank-Gescellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften E.V., Case No. 2016-1336 (March 23, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 7,056,704; 7,078,196; 8,329,463; 8,362,231; 8,372,968; 8,445,237; 8,765,930; 8,778,902; 8,796,106; and 8,853,384 (“Tuschl II patents”)

Key point:

• The Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness determination does not provide a framework for determining whether a case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 but rather provides non-exclusive suggestions to be considered under the totality of the circumstances.