Cole Kepro Int’l., Inc. v. VSR Ind., Inc., No. 2016-2258, (June 19, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,860,814

Key point(s):

• A reference teaches away from an applicant’s claim when a person of ordinary skill would bediscouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led away from the pathtaken by the applicant.
• A license, as evidence of commercial success accompanying a patent claim, is weakened where thelicense conveys rights beyond the claim and/or states the license is in settlement of litigation, andthe license contains no other nexus to the claim.

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. No. 2016-2170, 2221, (June 19, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 8,798,522

Key point(s):

• Specific personal jurisdiction cannot be established in a patent infringement case by cumulative evidence of activities prior to issuance of the patent, forum choice clauses in agreements unrelated to the infringement claim, functionality in a commercial web site that allows a user to select a state from a list, or mass advertisements.

Storer v. Clark, No’s. 2015-1802, (June 21, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600

Key point(s):

• Ordinary skill in the art cannot be relied upon to enable a patent claim.

Nanktwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794, (June 23, 2017) (Precedential) (2-1)

Key point(s):

• In an action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the applicant for patent must pay all expenses of the action, including USPTO attorney and expert fees.

Chaffin v. Braden, No. 2016-2572, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,932,912

Key point(s):

• Claim interpretation inconsistent with intrinsic evidence and not litigated is not an appropriate basis for summary judgment of non-infringement.

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., No. 2016-2004, 8, 9, 19-21, 2112-14, 2182-84, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704; 6,009,469; 6,131,121

Key point(s):

• References describing a point-to-point communication system that queries a server for registered processes, without determining whether those processes are connected to the server at the time of the query, did not invalidate claims requiring a query for processes connected to the server at the time of the query.

Prism Techs., Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2016-2031, 2016-2049, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155

Key points:

• A claim to a computer-implemented method is ineligible for patenting if the claim is directed tothe abstract idea of controlling access to protected resources and recites no novel featuresregarding how that access is controlled.