Download PDF

Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC., No. 2023-1146 (February 17, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 7,549,779; 8,128,264

Key point(s):

• An incorrect allegation of patent infringement is not necessarily objectively baseless.

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC. v. Castle Retail, LLC., No. 2022-1222 (February 17, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 10,499,091

Key point(s):

• Even if the claims achieve their purported solution, the use of only generic functional language, requiring nothing other than conventional computer and network components, may still be unpatentable subject matter under § 101.

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 2021-2246 (February 15, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 9,186,208

Key point(s):

• “The public use bar is triggered ‘where, before the critical date, the invention is [(1)] in public use and [(2)] ready for patenting.” The “in public use” element of the bar is met if the invention “was accessible to the public or was commercially exploited” by the inventor or if the invention is “shown to or used.

ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., No. 2022-1116 (February 13, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8,197,807

Key point(s):

• Claims which are broad enough to encompass a product of nature, without adding more than the isolation of a targeted compound, are invalid under § 101.

SSI Technologies, LLC. v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD., No. 2021-2345, 2022-1039 (February 13, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 8,733,153; 9,535,038

Key point(s):

• A doctrine of equivalents theory cited in briefing and an expert report, even if relatively limited, is sufficient to preserve the argument on remand, following proper claim construction by the Federal Circuit.