Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC. v. Gevo, Inc., No. 2013-1342 (February 18, 2014) (precedential) (3-0), U.S. Patent No. 7,851,188 & 7,993,889

Key point:

• Subsequent extrinsic evidence must clearly reflect the inventor’s intention, at the time of the invention, to redefine a claim term that has a plain and ordinary meaning.

Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. et al.. v. Stopaq Amcorr Inc., No. 2013-1200 (February 21, 2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,898,044

Key point:

• Prosecution history may illuminate claim meaning even when, on its face, an independent claim appears to be narrower than a dependent claim.

Otto Bock Healthcare LP v. Ossur HF et al., No. 2013-1650 (February 18, 2014) (non-precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,726,726

Key point:

• Subject matter incorporated by reference in a patent application may be used to provide corresponding structure for means plus function limitations.

Ring & Pinion Service Inc. v. ARB Corporation LTD., No. 2013-1238 (February 19, 2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,591,098

Key points:

• Forseeability is not a bar to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
• It is legal error to ignore facts stipulated to by the parties.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., No. 2013-1406 (February 20, 2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,328,994

Key point:

• The end point of a claimed range may be considered an absolute end point based upon the specification.

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., No. 2012-1014 (February 21, 2014) (precedential) (6-4) (en banc)

Key point:

• The Federal Circuit will continue to review claim construction de novo on appeal.