ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc., No. 2021-1517 (June 1, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,565,493

Key point(s):
• Just because a claim term is susceptible to more than one meaning does not render it indefinite. Such a test would render nearly every claim term indefinite so long as a party could manufacture a plausible construction. Instead the test for indefiniteness is whether the claims, in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform skilled artisans about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd. v. Barclays Capital Inc., Nos. 2021-1107, 2021-1228 (June 1, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Trademark Reg. Nos. 91219477, 91219478, 91219549

Key point(s):
• A mark with extensive public recognition and a high degree of fame may be afforded a high degree of protection notwithstanding the mark’s expiration.

In re Taylor, No. 2021-1613 (June 2, 2022) (non-precedential); U.S. Patent Application No. 14/971,878

Key point(s):
• In a pro se appeal, the Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the application was anticipated by prior art.

Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., No. 2021-1834 (June 3, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,926,544

Key point(s):
• Reliance on an obvious minor clerical error in the claim language is not a defense to willful infringement and can be corrected judicially.