Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharm. Inc., No. 2015-1902, May 16, 2016 (Precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• Application of doctrine of equivalents does not require the claim element’s function to be spelled out in the patent or the intrinsic record; if not spelled out in the patent, the relevant inquiry is what the claim element’s function is to one of skill in the art.

Diamond Coating Techs, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 2015-1844, 2015-1861, May 17, 2016 (Precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• A transferee of patent rights cannot sue alone for patent infringement unless it has received all substantial rights in the patent.
• Nunc pro tunc assignments are not sufficient to confer retroactive patentee status.

In re TLI Comms LLC Patent Litigation, Nos. 2015-1372, etc., May 17, 2016 (Precedential) (3-0); U.S. No. 6,038,295

Key point(s):

• Prior art should be considered during step one of Alice analysis, because it informs whether the claims cover a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system.
• While carrying out step two of an Alice analysis, remember that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patentability to an otherwise abstract idea and the components must involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.