In Re Aqua Products, Inc., No. 2015-1177, May 25, 2016 (Precedential) (3-0) 

Patent No. 8,273,183

Key point(s):

• A patentee who wants to amend or substitute claims in an Inter Partes Review proceeding must demonstrate in its motion that the proposed amendments would make the claims patentable over the known prior art.

Profectus Technology, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., LTD, Nos. 2015-1016, 2015-1018, 2015-1019, May 26, 2016 (Precedential) (2-1) 

Patent No. 6,975,308

Key point(s):

• The District Court’s construction was supported by the claims and specification, while the patentee’s proposed construction was not supported by the claims or specification.

David Netzer Consulting v. Shell Oil Company, No. 2015-2086, May 27, 2016 (Precedential) (3-0); 

Patent No. 6,677,496

Key point(s):

• A claim term that was clearly and repeatedly described in the specification and distinguished from conventional extraction does not cover a conventional extraction.