Google, LLC v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2016-2509-2512 (March 26, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 8,460,179; 8,205,237; 8,010,988; 8,656,441

Key point(s):

• For negative limitations, the broadest reasonable interpretation is the narrowest reasonable interpretation of the positive term.
• In an IPR, the Board needs to make an explicit factual finding of all evidence presented to merit deferential review.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Nos. 2017-1118; 2017-1202 (March 27, 2018) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• The ultimate question of fair use should be decided by the judge, not the jury.
• Under 9th circuit law, the jury only determines “disputed historical facts” of fair use, although it is not error to submit everything to the jury.

In re Brandt., Nos. 2016-2601 (March 27, 2018) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Application No. 13/652,858

Key point(s):

• An explanation of a criticality or meaningful difference for a specified range is important to asserting that a close non-overlapping range is not obvious.

Matthews Int’l Corp. v. Vandor Corp., Nos. 2017-1889 (March 26, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 8,104,151

Key point(s):

• A structural claim term defined by the function it performs is not a mere “intended use”.

Sophos Ltd. v. Iancu, Nos. 2017-1567 (March 28, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 8,776,218

Key point(s):

• Claim interpretation should be reasonable in light of the specification, the essential function of the invention, and the claim’s own statement of its objective.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2017-1313, -1380 (March 28, 2018) (nonprecedential) Patent No. 8,051,211

Key point(s):

• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board must provide a “reasoned explanation of its decision” that a prior art reference does not disclose a claim limitation.
• A party cannot provide an explanation for the Board’s decision where the Board has failed to provide one.