Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories LTD., No. 23-1977 (April 8, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 10,959,948

Key point:

• Clear, unambiguous, and complete disclaimers during prosecution of a related patent application may result in a claim construction that prevents a finding of infringement.

In re LI, No. 2024-1209 (April 8, 2025) (nonprecedential); U.S. Patent Application No. 13/576,565

Key point:

• There was no nexus between evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed invention when the Board had already found that the claimed invention was known in the prior art. Applicant’s evidence therefore related to other, unclaimed elements of the products, which had received such praise and success.

Heritage Alliance v. American Policy Roundtable, No. 24-1155 (April 9, 2025) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point:

• 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), which provides that five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use of a mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness, indicates discretion, not obligation. And, when a mark is seen as highly descriptive, the TTAB has discretion to require more substantial evidence of secondary meaning.