The Regents of the University of California v. Satco Products, Inc., No._2023-1356 (December 4, 2024) (Nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,644,213

Key point(s):

• Patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sized if the specification is completely silent on the issue.
• If a drawing is not drawn to scale and does not show relative proportions, the Board cannot rely on bold lines in a figure to make findings regarding thickness.

Bell Semiconductors LLC v. NXP B.V., No. 2023-1260, 2023-1262, 2023-1263, 2023-1264 (December 5, 2024) (Nonprecedential); Patent No(s). 8,049,340; 8,288,269

Key point(s):

• Rigid approaches to the question of obviousness have been repeatedly rejected.
• Attorney arguments made for the first time on appeal cannot save a petition that the Board reasonably concluded was evidentiarily deficient.

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Vidal, No. 2019-2447 (December 2, 2024) (Nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,014,667

Key point(s):

• The existence of another plausible conclusion does not compel the appellate court to determine that the Board’s decision is unsupported by the substantial evidence.
• An appellant must show not only that an error exists, but also that the error was in fact harmful.
• Absent exceptional circumstances, the Federal Circuit does not consider arguments on appeal that a party failed to advance in the tribunal under review.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2024-2211, 2024-2212 (December 4, 2024) (Nonprecedential); Patent No. 11,096,918

Key point(s):

• To establish a right to a preliminary injunction, a party must make a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.
• When faced with compelling evidence from both parties, it is not clearly erroneous for the district court to determine that the party bearing the burden of proof did not establish a likelihood of success on the issue.

PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., No. 2023-1665 (December 6, 2024) (Precedential) (3-0); Design Patent No. D680,188

Key point(s):

• The district court can impose sanctions under its inherent power in addition to awarding attorney fees and costs.
• If, in the informed discretion of the court, neither the statute nor the Rules provide a basis for imposing sanctions, the court may properly rely on its inherent power.