In re: Power Integrations, Inc., Nos. 2018-0144, 2018-0145, 2018-0146, 2018-0147 (August 16, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0) IPR2017-01903, IPR2017-01904, IRP2017-01944, IPR2017-01975

Key point:

• A writ of mandamus cannot be used as an alternative means of obtaining appellate review of institution decisions in IPRs.

Click-to-Call Tech., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Yellowpages.com, LLC, No. 2015-1242 (August 16, 2018) (Precedential) (en banc), Patent No. 5,818,836; IPR2013-00312

Key point:

• The litigation time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies even in cases where the plaintiff-patentee voluntarily dismisses the lawsuit without prejudice.

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu, No. 2017-1629, 2017-1631, 2017-1633 (August 16, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0), U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,696,166; 8,070,319; 8,534,869

Key points:

• The time bar for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Core Wireless Licesning S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2017-2102 (August 16, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,477,151; 6,633,536

Key point:

• Breach of a duty of disclosure to a standards-setting organization may constitute implied waiver.

In re Rembrandt Tech., LP Patent Litig., Nos. 2017-1784 (August 15, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 4,937,819; 5,008,903; 5,710,761; 5,719,858; 5,778,234; 6,131,159; 6,950,444; 5,243,627

Key point:

• An award of attorney fees must have some causal connection to the misconduct.

BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., No. 2017-1980 (August 15, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0), Patent No. 6,035,294; 6,243,699; 6,195,652

Key point:

• When the only alleged unconventional feature of a claim is determined to be an abstract idea, the claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2017-2553, (August 15, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0), Patent No. 8,523,235

Key point:

• Overcoming a presumption against §112, paragraph 6 application may be done solely by reference to evidence intrinsic to the patent.

In re Facebook, Inc., No. 2017-2524, (August 14, 2018) (Nonprecedential), Patent App. No. 13/715,636

Key point:

• A claim is not anticipated or rendered obvious unless a prior art reference teaches or suggests each and every element of the claim.