Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., No. 2015-1415, January 20, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,366,694 and 7,680,728

Key point(s):

• Amending invalidity contentions to include a defense that was previously lacking in merit may be justified after a clarification in Supreme Court jurisprudence.  

Pfizer v. Lee, No. 2015-1265, January 22, 2016 (precedential) (2-1); Patent No. 8,153,768

Key point(s):

• The underlying purpose of patent term adjustment is to compensate patent applicants for certain reductions in patent term that are not the fault of the applicant.

• An examiner’s action that places applicants on notice of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of their claims satisfies the notice requirement for purposes of patent term adjustment.

Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., No. 2015-1316, January 22, 2016 (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,990,018

Key point(s):

• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board must articulate its reasoning underlying an obviousness decision so that a reviewing court may conduct meaningful review of the proceedings.

Lumen View Tech. LLC v. FindTheBest.com, Inc., No. 2015-1275, 2015-1325, January 22, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8.069,073

Key point(s):

• In cases deemed “exceptional” for the purpose of awarding attorney fees, a district court must provide a proper rationale to justify enhancing attorney fees.

• A district court may enhance the lodestar amount for attorney fees based on various factors, provided that they are not adequately taken into account by the lodestar calculation.