Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., No. 2023-1953 (December 30, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 9,763,933; 9,775,808; 9,763,886; 9,073,933; and 9,522,919

Key point:

• Obviousness is a fact-intensive inquiry that does not necessarily end with a determination of who discovered the source of the problem at issue.

Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Nos. 2023-1354, 2023-1384, 2023-1407 (January 2, 2025) (precedential) (2-1); Patent No. 7,319,718

Key points:

• Requiring the motivation to modify to be the same motivation as that of the patent inventor has no basis in the obviousness doctrine.
• A claimed modification need only to be desirable in light of the prior art and not the “best” or “preferred” approach to meet the standard for obviousness.

CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, No. 2023-1502 (January 3, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Registration Nos. 4319095 and 4319096

Key points:

• There is no complete bar to asserting the affirmative defense of unclean hands in functionality proceedings.
• Utility patents are strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional without requiring that the patent explicitly disclose that the claimed feature is functional or that the trademark be used for the goods described in the patent.