Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co, Ltd., 2013-1129 (11/18/2013) (precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 618,677; 593,087; 604,305; 7,469,381; 7,844,915; and 7,864,163

Key points:

• Irreparable harm for an injunction does not require proof consumers purchased accused products because they have the infringing features, the party only needs to show that the infringing features make the products more desirable or drive the market.
• Each patent feature considered alone does not need to increase the desirability or drive the market, but aggregate of the features of the asserted patents may be considered.

In Re Kevin P. Eaton Case No. 2013-1104 (November 22, 2013) (non-precedential) Patent App. No. 11/145,716

Key points:

• Ambiguous terms in claims should be read in light of the specification
• Anticipation requires the prior art to teach the construed meaning of a term

August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd. 2012-1681; 2013-1023 (11/18/2013) (non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,826,298

Key points:

• A civil contempt order is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
• A contempt order is civil if it is compensatory and not punitive

Jake Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc., 2013-1049 (11/21/2013) (non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,418,936

Key points:

• The issue of willfulness should not be submitted to the jury if the defendant reasonably had a valid defense to infringement
• Expert opinion to support infringement not needed when the technology is simple and understandable.