John R. Gammino v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Case Nos. 2013-1613, 2014-1016 (August 15, 2014) (non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 5,809,125

Key point(s):

• Acquiescence to an Examiner’s statements in the file history can limit claim scope beyond the actual wording of the claim.
• Inconsistent positions in summary judgment briefing can be used against the patentee to limit claim scope.

I/P Engine, Inc., v. AOL Inc., Case No. 2013-1307, -1313, August 15, 2014 (non-precedential) (2-1), U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664

Key point(s)

• Common sense can be indicia of obviousness.

Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., Case No. 2013-1674, August 15, 2014, (Precedential) (3-0), U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556

Key point(s):

• An inventor’s suspicion of the true teaching of the prior art is not enough to establish inequitable conduct, but knowingly misrepresenting material facts about the prior art does establish inequitable conduct.