Rivera v. International Trade Commission No. 2016-1841 (May 23, 2017) (3-0, Precedential) Patent No. 8,720,320

Key point(s):

• Knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if thoselimitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.

Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2016-1290 (May 23, 2017) (Nonprecedential)

Key point(s):

• When a party unsuccessfully defends against summary judgment on one theory, but raises a new theory on appeal, the party is held to have waived both theories.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 2016-2006 (May 26, 2017) (3-0, Precedential) Patent Nos. 6,344,785, 6,297,720, and 5,656,985

Key point(s):

• Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is limited to an appeal from a “final decision” of a district court, and the Supreme Court has explained that a “final decision” for money must determine or specify how to determine the amount.

Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corporation, No. 2016-2177 (May 26, 2017), Nonprecedential) Patent No. 7,418,439

Key point(s):

• For means-plus function limitations, interpretation of what is disclosed must be made in light of the knowledge of one skilled in the art, but the understanding of one skilled in the art does not relieve the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.