AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. (October 20, 2014) Case No. 2013-1056 (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 8,393,896; 6,649,159; RE 39,337.

Key point(s):

• Applying regional law (Ninth Circuit law, in this case) to questions of discipline under a district court’s inherent powers, imposition of sanctions is improper without a finding of conduct tantamount to bad faith.

World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp. (October 20, 2014) Case Nos. 2013-1679, 2014-1692 (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8,393,896.

Key point(s):

• Where claim language is ambiguous, disclosing only a single embodiment in the specification may lead to a narrower interpretation of the claim.

Iris Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp. (October 21, 2014) Case No. 2010-1051 (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,111,506.

Key point(s):

• In order to qualify under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), accused activity must be conducted “for the Government” and “with the authorization and consent of the Government.”

Warner Chilcott Co., LLC v. Lupin Ltd. (October 22, 2014) Case Nos. 2014-1262, -1273 (nonprecedential) (3-0); Patent No. 7,704,984.

Key point(s):

• One challenging patent claims as obvious in district court needs to show by clear and convincing evidence that the claims are obvious.

Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc. (October 22, 2014) Case Nos. 2013-1472, -1656 (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 5,656,985; 6,297,720; 6,344,785.

Key point(s):

• There is not sale within the U.S. under § 271(a) where negotiations and contracting activities occur in the U.S., but the delivery, receipt of purchase orders and a majority of other activities relating to the sale occur abroad.
• There is no offer for sale within the U.S. where the contemplated sale will be abroad.
• The first prong of the willfulness test is objective and a reasonable defense to infringement, even if only raised at trial, can defeat a charge of willful infringement.