Industrial Technology Research Institute v. ITC, No. 337-TA-805 (June 23, 2014) (nonprecedential), U.S. Patent No. 6,883,932

Key point:

• If a court determines that a patent has not been infringed, there is no need for the court to also address the affirmative defense of invalidity.

In re Nordic Naturals, Inc., No. 2013-1492 (June 23, 2014) (precedential, 3-0), TTAB Serial NO. 77131419

Key point:

• Although declarations from retailers of the goods at issue may be sufficient to support distinctiveness, they are insufficient for showing “mixture of usages.”

CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 2013-1529 (June 24, 2014) (precedential, 3-0), U.S. Patent Nos. 7,545,361, 7,548,866, 7,548,869, & 7,660,728

Key points:

• Mediators are bound by disclosure requirements similar to the recusal requirements of judges.
• A mediator’s breach of duty by not disclosing a relationship with one of the litigants is not enough to warrant granting relief from judgment by an impartial jury and an impartial judge.

Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation, No. 2013-1450 (June 27, 2014) (precedential, 2-1), U.S. Patent Nos. 5,699,038, 6,147,592 &7,538,659

Key point:

• Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”

Lochner Technologies, LLC v. Vizio, Inc., Nos. 2013-1551 (June 27, 2014) (nonprecedential), U.S. Patent No. 7,035,598

Key point:

• Although open-ended, use of the term “including” does not trump consideration of the specification and prosecution history during claim construction.

Rotatable Technologies LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Nos. 2014-1042 (June 27, 2014) (nonprecedential, 3-0), U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978

Key point:

• A preamble may limit the claimed invention if it recites additional structure or steps that the specification underscores as important, or if it is clearly relied on during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.