Galderma Laboratories, L.P., v. Tolmar, Inc., (December 11, 2013) (precedential) Patent Nos. 7,579,377; 7,737,181; 7,834,060; 7,838.558; and 7,868,044.

Key point:

• Claims to a compound known to have a property at a specific concentration can be shown to be obvious by introducing prior art that teaches the useful property over a range which includes the specific concentration. The burden then shifts to the patentee to show that secondary considerations merit patentability for the specific concentration.

CBT Flint Partners, LLC, v. Return Path, Inc., (December 11, 2013) (precedential) Patent Nos. 6,192,114, 6,587,550

Key point:

• Only certain costs associated with e-discovery may be taxed as costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), provided the costs are an electronic equivalent of “making copies.”