Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, No. 2020-2331, (March 14, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,517,219

Key point
 The presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges applies even when the prior art reference discloses a similar, but not identical, element or compound.

Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. Intellicentrics, Inc., 2021-1906 (March 15, 2022) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,304,268

Key point:
 Automation of a long-standing human process cannot be the inventive concept because such automation is itself an abstract idea.

O’Keeffe’s, Inc. v. Hirshfeld, No. 2021-1025 (March 15, 2022) (non-precedential); Patent No.9,926,709

Key point:
 Findings based on the expert’s assessment are supported by substantial evidence.

BASF Plant Science, LP v. Commonwealth Scientific, 2020-1415, 2020-1416, 2020-1919, 2020-1920 (March 15, 2022) (precedential) (2-1); Patent Nos. 9,926,579; 9,951,357; 9,970,033; 9,994,880; 9,994,792; and 9,932,541

Key point:
 Third-party counterclaim defendants are not “defendants” subject to the patent venue protections of Section 1400(b).

Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp., 2021-1777 (March 18, 2022) (non-precedential); Pkyatent No. 6,381,496

Key point:
 Broad claim language can be met by broad prior art disclosures.