Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n., Case No. 2012-1170 (August 10, 2015) (precedential) (6-4) (en banc) Patent No. 7,203,344

Key point(s):

• The ITC has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 to exclude articles based on induced infringement of a method claim even when inducement does not occur until after importation.

Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., Case No. 2014-1675 (August 12, 2015) (non-precedential) Patent No. 6,432,586

Key point(s):

• The “likelihood of success on the merits” prong of a preliminary injunction analysis must be predicated on claim construction or factual finding(s) on infringement or invalidity.
• A patent does not allow a patentee to create a monopoly over an unclaimed component of the invention.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, Case No. 2014-1123 (August 12, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,249,876

Key point(s):

• While the PTAB is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term, during reexamination the Board has some obligation to assess whether the interpretation is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.

Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech. Inc., Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., Case Nos. 2014-1360, -1500 (August 13, 2015) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 4,795,719; 4,868,629; 5,042,009

Key point(s):

• For any patent, whether expired or not, transferring only the right to sue for past damages, divorced from title, does not confer standing under the Patent Act.
• The transfer of rights after expiration of the patent is generally treated the same as during the pendency of the patent.

In re Louisiana Fish Fry Products, Ltd., Case Nos. 2013-1619 (August 14, 2015) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• While showing five years of “substantially exclusive and continuous” use may serve as prima facie evidence of the acquired distinctiveness of a mark, for a highly descriptive mark the PTO and Board have discretion not to accept this evidence.