Wilson v. Martin, No. 2018-1980 (October 21, 2019); (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,809,044

Key point(s):

• Relying upon expert testimony in determining §102(b) anticipation is not prohibited as a matter of law.
• Judicial estoppel is not required where a party relies upon different facts in post grant proceeding that appear to contradict statements made during prosecution.

Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V, No. 2018-2213, IPR2017-00437 (October 23, 2019); (nonprecedential) ; Patent No. 6,772,114

Key point(s):

• Similarities in the resulting information resulting from a known modification do not convert a low-pass filter into a high-pass filter for purposes of anticipation.
• An argument appearing first in a reply brief may be untimely if the non-moving party is not given a fair and meaningful opportunity to respond.