U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. 2015-1640 2015-1641, (April 25, 2016) (non-precedential) Patent No. 5,434,872 5,732,094

Key point(s):

• Extrinsic evidence in the form of nine experts does not overcome construction based on unambiguous intrinsic evidence.

In re Garrido, No. 2016-1007, (April 26, 2016) (non-precedential) Patent No. 6,012,890

Key point(s):

• If secondary considerations of nonobviousness are submitted after a Final office action, the Examiner may present the Examiner’s analysis of the evidence of secondary considerations in the Examiner’s brief to the Board.
• Examiner can reject claims during reexamination under §112 if the claims are added during the course of reexamination.

Largan Precision Co., LTD. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., LTD., No. 2015-1695, (April 27, 2016) (non-precedential)

Key point(s):

• Induced infringement requires proof of direct infringement by some party.
• File patent applications in countries where competitors are making the product.

Beckmann v. Gandhi, No. 2015-1765 (April 29, 2016) (non-precedential) Patent No. 7,584,605 Patent Application No. 12/877,901

Key point(s):

• Claims are construed based on the plain language of the claims, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims cannot be unreasonably broad.