Loops, LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc., Case Nos. 2013-1332, -1333 (November 13, 2014) (nonprecedential) (3-0), Patent No. 7,334,286.

Key point(s):

• A price list that does not mention an accused product is still required to be produced when its heading unambiguously applies to a discovery order.

Ultramercial, Inc., v. Hulu, LLC, and WildTangent, Inc., Case No. 2010-1544 (November 14, 2014) (precedential) (3-0), Patent No. 7,346,545.

Key point(s):

• A method using advertising as an exchange or currency is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea when the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the idea with routine, conventional activity.
• The addition of routine, insignificant data-gathering steps is not sufficient to transform an otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

Rozbicki v. Chiang, Case No. 2014-1041 (November 14, 2014) (nonprecedential) (3-0), Patent No. 6,607,977.

Key point(s):

• A party attempting to obtain the broadest claim language possible during prior prosecution by reciting the term “etching” may not narrow its language in an interference by importing “net etching” into the issued claims.