Key point(s):

• A term is construed as a
  single phrase in claim construction if the specification consistently
  describes it as such.

Deep Green Wireless LLC
v. Ooma, Inc.
, No. 2019-1570
(March 31, 2020) (non-precedential); Patent No. RE42,714

Key point(s):

• The disclosure of one
  embodiment in the specification does not mean that broadly written claim
  language must be limited to that embodiment.

Intellisoft, Ltd. v.
Acer America Corp.
, No.
2019-1522 (April 3, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 5,410,713

Key point(s):

• Factual evidence regarding
  patents in state law claims is not enough to “necessarily raise” patent law
  issues required for removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

• Legally inoperative
  counterclaims are not “asserted” counterclaims and cannot be removed to
  federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1454.

Myco Industries, Inc.
v. BlephEx, LLC,
No.
2019-2374 (April 3, 2020) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,039,718

Key point(s):

• A showing of bad faith is
  required before a patentee can be enjoined from communicating its patent
  rights.

• Under the medical immunity
  statute, medical practitioners are not immune from infringement, but rather
  the patentee cannot seek a remedy for such infringement.

Taylor v. Iancu, No. 2018-1070 (April 3, 2020) (non-precedential);
Patent App. No. 11/391,501

Key point(s):

• A specification that does
  not describe the combination of multiple different versions that are claimed
  in combination lacks written description.

• An applicant’s admission
  that there was not a suitable platform to implement the claimed invention is
  evidence that the inventor was not in possession of the claimed invention as
  of the filing date.

Taylor v. Iancu, No. 2018-1048 (April 3, 2020) (non-precedential) ;
Patent App. No. 10/425,553

Key point(s):

• A specification that does
  not describe how multiple features are integrated simultaneously lacks
  written description if the claim requires that the multiple features be performed
  concurrently.

• An applicant admitting
  there was a lack of a suitable platform to implement a claimed idea is
  evidence that the specification did not demonstrate possession of the claimed
  invention.

Taylor v. Iancu, No. 2018-1047 (April 3, 2020) (non-precedential); Patent
App. No. 11/807,860

Key point(s):

• A specification must enable
  simulation of all modes of operation to enable the claims to be performed by
  a person of skill.

• An applicant admitting
there was a lack of a suitable platform to implement a claimed idea is
evidence that the specification did not demonstrate possession of the claimed
invention.