Oplus Technologies, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2014-1297, April 10, 2015 (precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• Where a trial court finds litigation misconduct and that a case is exceptional, the court must articulate its reasons in denying an award of fees to the opposing party.

Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Technology Inc., No. 2014-1390, April 10, 2015 (nonprecedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 5,851,095, 6,280,131, and 6,468,012, U.S. Trademark Nos. 2,478,685 and 3,678,153

Key point(s):

• Product catalog depicting products, without more, is insufficient to prove that an accused infringer used trademarks in the United States.

Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc., v. Michelle K. Lee., No. 2014-1728, April 10, 2015 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,402, 6,794,634, 7,191,915, and 7,343,220

Key point(s):

• The USPTO’s refusal to terminate inter parties reexaminations does not qualify as a final agency action for under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2014-1065, April 9, 2015 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 6,861,411, 6,239,113, and 7,056,893

Key point(s):

• Parties must adhere to trial court’s schedule for producing potential evidence or run the risk that the material may be excluded.

AstraZenenca AB, v. Apotex Corp., No. 2014-1221, April 7, 2015 (precedential)(3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 4,786,505 and 4,853,230

Key point(s):

• Royalty damages for patent infringement cannot include royalties for a period of time where the patent has expired, even if that time is during a pediatric exclusivity period.