Dome Patent L.P., v. Lee, Case No. 2014-1673 (September 3, 2015) (precedential)(3-0); Patent No. 4,306,042

Key point(s):

• The “preponderance of the evidence standard,” rather than the “clear and convincing standard,” applies in an appeal of a USPTO reexamination proceeding.

Media Rights Technologies, Inc., v. Capital One Financial Corp., Case No. 2014-1218 (September 4, 2015) (precedential)(3-0); Patent No. 7,316,033

Key point(s):

• The description of a claim term’s function and interaction with other parts in the system, alone, is not sufficient to avoid the application of means-plus-function treatment.

Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics, Inc., Case No. 2015-1214 (September 4, 2015) (precedential)(3-0); Patent No. 6,635,196

Key point(s):

• To satisfy its burden of proof that a prior art reference has an effective date of an earlier provisional application, the petitioner must show that the relevant portion of the prior art reference is supported by the description of the earlier provisional in accordance with (pre-AIA) § 112, paragraph 1, or §112(a).