In re Riggs, No. 22-1945 (March 24, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent App. No. 11/005,678

Key point(s):

• An examiner can file a Request for Rehearing before the Board
• To be prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e), a provisional application must provide written description support for at least one application publication claim and written description support for the portion of the patent specification relied on in the prior art rejection

Wash World, Inc. v. Belanger, Inc., No. 23-1841_(March 24, 2025) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8,602,041

Key point(s):

• A materially different claim construction on appeal cannot be saved by pointing to ambiguous statements in the record and results in forfeiture
• While there was no plain and express request for remittitur, that argument was preserved based on a review of the record

Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., No. 2023-1786, -1871, -1893_(March 24, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,214,664

Key point(s):

• Determining Article III standing and identifying the “patentee” requires detailed analysis
• A Lanham Act false advertising claim requires a statement be unambiguously false

Xerox Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 2023-1912 (March 25, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,137,190

Key point:

• Just because the Board addresses the merits of an untimely argument does not mean the Federal Circuit will consider the untimely argument

QuantifiCare S.A. v. Canfield Scientific, Inc., No. 2023-1917, -1918, -1919 (March 25, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 10,070,119, 10,165,253, and 10.681,334

Key point:

• The public-notice function of claim a patent and its prosecution history requires that patentees be held to what they declare during prosecution

BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2023-2417 (March 26, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,292,011

Key point(s):

• Increased energy efficiency may establish a sufficient motivation to combine.
• Licensing evidence that does not show the significance of a specific patent in a universe of 30 patents is not sufficient to constitute evidence of commercial success.

Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Manufacturing Unlimited Co., No. 2023-2251_ (March 27, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,845,629

Key point(s):

• The Board cannot ignore everything a reference taught
• When there are a finite number of options, an obvious-to-try analysis considers whether a POSITA had good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., No. 2023-2042 (March 28, 2025) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,143,693

Key point(s):

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding waiver under the local governing rules for failing to raise a divided infringement argument in invalidity contentions