O.F. Mossberg & Sons,
Inc. v. Timney Triggers, LLC,
No.
2019-1134 (April 13, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 7,293,385

Key point(s):

• A defendant cannot recover an
  attorney fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the plaintiff voluntarily
  dismissed its patent infringement case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Stratus Networks, Inc. v.
UBTA-UBET Communications, Inc.,
No.
2019-1251 (April 14, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); TTAB No. 91214143

Key point(s):

• The absence of explicit
  findings on particular
  DuPont factors used by the Board to assess whether
  there is a likelihood of confusion does not give rise to reversible error where
  the record demonstrates that the Board has considered the factor and
  corresponding arguments and evidence.

Ericsson Inc. v. TCL
Communication Technology
, No.
2018-2003 (April 14, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); Patent No. 7,149,510

Key point(s):

• The issue of patent
  eligibility under § 101 may be preserved for appeal even if not raised for
  decision or mentioned in the district court’s final judgment if there is an
  “effective grant of summary judgment” in favor of the non-moving party.

Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. v.
Ultraproof, Inc.
, Nos.
2019-1435, 2019-1717 (April 17, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); Design Patent Nos.
D771,607, D775,620, and D776,648

Key point(s):

• Summary judgment of
  obviousness is not proper where there is a genuine dispute that a primary
  reference might not be “basically the same” as an asserted design patent.

CardioNet, LLC v.
InfoBionic, Inc.,
No.
2019-1149 (April 17, 2020) (precedential) (2-1); U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207

Key point(s):

• Advantages provided in a
  patent’s written description may be used to show that a claimed invention is
  drawn to a technological improvement and not to an abstract idea under
  Alice
  step one.