Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., No. 2016-2576 (July 25, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,686,738

Key point(s):

• A party seeking a claim construction should be mindful that “[t]he full scope of the claimed invention must be enabled.”

Zup LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc., No. 2017-1601 (July 25, 2018) (Precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 8,292,681

Key point(s):

• While burden of persuasion remains with the challenger with respect to obviousness (because every issued patent is entitled to a presumption of validity), “a patentee bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.”

Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com, Inc., No. 2017-2076 (July 26, 2018) (Non-precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,924,727

Key point(s):

• Obviousness should not be considered in an inherency inquiry.

GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 2017-1894 (July 27, 2018) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 8,890,954, 8,896,694

Key point(s):

• For printed publications, the standard for public accessibility is one of reasonable diligence to locate the information by interested members of the relevant public.

Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (July 27, 2017) (en banc) (7-4)

Key point(s):

• The American Rule provides that each litigant bears its own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, and a statute must use “specific and explicit” language to depart from this rule. “All the expenses of the proceedings” does not meet this standard.