Keurig, Inc., v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 2013-1072 (October 17, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,606,938 and 7,165,488

Key points:

• Where a person has purchased a patented machine of the patentee or his assignee, this purchase carries with it the right to the use of the machine so long as it is capable of use.
• The substantial embodiment test provides a framework for determining whether the sale of an unpatented component, which by itself does not practice the patented method, is still sufficient for exhaustion.

In Re Lutz Biedermann and Jurgen Harms, No. 2013-1080 (October 18, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Appl. No. 10/306,057

Key point:

• The ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered ‘new’ in a decision by the Board is whether applicants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection.