Elbrus v. Samsung, No. 2017-1855 (June 27, 2018) (per curiam) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 6,366,130

Key point(s):

• Silence or an expression of preference for an alternative does not teach away.
• The test for obviousness does not require an actual physical combination of features. 

Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Lannett Holdings, Inc., No. 2017-2020_(6/28/2018) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,750,237 and 7,220,767

Key point(s):

• Prior art, both individually and collectively, should be viewed as a whole.
• A licensing agreement can be considered evidence of secondary consideration in an obviousness analysis if there is a nexus between the agreement and the patents at issue.