Artrip v. Ball Corp., Case No. 2018-1277 (May 23, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 5,660,516, 6,022,179, 7,063,492, 7,234,907, 7,237,998, 7,237,999, and 7,344,347

Key point(s):

• Where a party repeatedly fails to cure defects in its pleadings, a court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow further amendments.

ViaTech Technologies v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2017-2276 (May 23, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent No. 6,920,567

Key point(s):

• Where an asserted claim requires the presence of a structure corresponding to a claim element, the mere capability by an allegedly infringing product to generate the claim element is insufficient to show infringement.

UCB, inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Case Nos. 2016-2610, 2016-2683, 2016-2685, 2016-2698, 2016-2710, 2017-1001 (May 23, 2018) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. RE38,551

Key point(s):

• Obviousness-type double patenting inquiry requires consideration of the differences, as opposed to commonalities, between the claims of the reference and the claims of the patent at issue.

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., Case Nos. 2016-2054, 2016-2136 (May 23, 2018) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 6,149,867, 6,524,860, 7,820,425, 8,569,053, 7,713,687, and 7,771,921

Key point(s):

• An affirmance of an invalidity finding, whether from a district court or the PTAB, may have collateral estoppel effect on all pending or co-pending actions.
• The calculation of a post-judgment royalty rate should focus on the post-verdict economic circumstances of the parties involved.

D Three Enterprises, LLC v. SunModo Corp., Case Nos. 2017-1909, 2017-1910 (May 21, 2018) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 8,689,517, 9,068,339, and 8,707,655

Key point(s):

• Claims are not entitled to priority from an earlier application if the claims are broader than the invention disclosed in the earlier application, such that the broadened claims do not meet the written description requirement using the priority application.