Amgen, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. _2019-1067, 2019-1102 (December 16, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 5,856,298 and 5,756,349

Key point(s):

• Drug batches produced for FDA approval should be manufactured solely for the purposes of obtaining that approval.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Health In Motion LLC, No. 2018-2393 (December 16, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,705,976_

Key point(s):

• Making several settlement offers that are significantly less than the cost of litigation may be a factor in determining an exceptional case finding in awarding attorney’s fees.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. One World Technologies, Inc., No. 2018-2112 (December 17, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 7,196,611

Key point(s):

• Your own prior art may be used to anticipate later patents.

CG Technology Development, LLC v. Fanduel, Inc., No. _2019-1261 (December 17, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. _RE 39,818

Key point(s):

• Teachings in separate portions of a prior art specification may be combined.

Syngenta Crop Protection LLC v. Willowood LLC, Nos. 2018-1614, 2018-2044 (Dec. 18, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 5,602,076, 5,633,256, 5,847,138, and 8,124,761

Key point(s):

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) only conflicts with the Copyright Act to the extent that some particular element of the existing pesticide product’s label is both protected under existing copyright doctrines and necessary for the expedited approval of the generic pesticide product.
• Infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require a single entity to practice all steps of a patented process abroad, when importing, offering for sale, selling, or using within this country a product made by a process patented in the United States.

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Nos. 2018-2024, 2018-2025 (December 18, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,182,027

Key point(s):

• A patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus between asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and the product is essentially the claimed invention.
• Alternatively, the patent owner may prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Inc., No. 2019-1122 (Dec. 19, 2019) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 5,987,610, 6,073,142, 6,460,050, and 7,506,155

Key point(s):

• A district court has discretion, in an appropriate case, to find a case exceptional based on a single, isolated act, for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

SIPCO LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 2018-1856 (Dec. 20, 2019) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,697,492

Key point(s):

• There is a presumption that different terms in the claims (e.g., “receiver address” and “scalable address”) have different meanings.