Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 2011-1009 (January 22, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639

Key points:

• The District Court’s removal of the legal question of obviousness from the jury did not violate the right to a jury trial.
• Secondary considerations, such as commercial success, might not support nonobviousness if the licenses were abandoned or not used by those who bought litigation peace.

Rexnord Industries, LLC, v. Kappos and Habasit Belting, Inc., No. 2011-1434 (January 23, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,523,680

Key point:

• On judicial review, the correctness of the decision appealed from can be defended by the appellee on any ground that is supported by the record, whether or not the appellant raised the argument.

Ernie Ball, Inc. v. Earvana, LLC, No. 2012-1276 (January 24, 2013) (nonprecedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,433,264

Key point:

• When faced with a purely subjective phrase, a court must determine whether the patent’s specification supplies some standard for measuring the scope of the phrase.

Roger J. Hall and RJ Hall and Associates v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. and West Point Home, Inc., No. 2011-1165, -1235 (January 25, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. D596,439 S

Key point:

• Five elements of a design patent infringement pleading satisfy Rule 12(b)(6): (i) allege ownership of the patent, (ii) name each defendant, (iii) cite the patent that is allegedly infringed, (iv) state the means by which the defendant allegedly infringes, and (v) point to the sections of the patent law invoked.