Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. No. 2013-1648, 2015-1651, September 21, 2015 (Precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,765,482

Key point(s):

• The inquiry envisioned by Federal Rules of Evidence regarding reliability of expert testimony is a flexible one and the Daubert criteria may be considered but are not exhaustive.
• The frequency of expected use of a product and predicted value of the product can be related.

Shire, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC No. 2014-1736, 2014-1737, 2014-1738, 2014-1739, 2014-1740, 2014-1741, September 24, 2015 (Precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,105,486, 7,655,630, 7,659,253, 7,662,787

Key point(s):

• A defendant is not liable for induced infringement by supplying ingredients used in obtaining FDA approval for an infringing drug.

M-I LLC, v. FPUSA, LLC, No. 2015-1870, September 24, 2015 (Non-Precedential); Patent No. 9,004,288

Key point(s):

• Modifiers “first” and “second” merely distinguished between repeated instances of an element or limitation, and are not construed to denote spatial location.
• Broad injunctions that merely instruct the enjoined party not to infringe are improper because such an order frustrates the remedy of contempt, which is available only with respect to devices which are no more than colorably different from the enjoined product and which clearly are infringements of the patent.