Broadcom Corp. v Emulex Corp., No. 2012-1309 (October 7, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 7,058,150

Key points:

• An accused device that sometimes, but not always, meets a claim nonetheless infringes.
• An invention is not obvious just because the elements were known in the prior art without a plausible rational as to why the references would have worked together and without a reasonable expectation of success.
• Specific market conditions can be paramount to a finding of irreparable harm when seeking an injunction.

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v HTC Corp., No. 2012-1658 (October 9, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,266,186 and 7,310,416

Key point:

• A false affidavit to the PTO can be cured by expressly advising the PTO of the misrepresentation, identifying specifically where it occurred, providing the actual facts to the PTO, and taking the corrective action openly.

NCube Corp.(nka Arris Group, Inc.) v SeaChange Int’l., Inc., No. 2013-1066 (October 10, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,804

Key point:

• In a motion for contempt of an injunction, the enforcing party must prove that the newly accused product is not more than colorably different than the infringing product and that the newly accused product actually infringes.