Dominguez v. Barracuda Tackle LLC, No. 2022-1388 (February 27, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,165,764

Key point(s):

• Whether a party avoids or engages in sanctionable conduct under Rule 11(b) is not the appropriate benchmark in a § 285 analysis.
• The court did not abuse its discretion when it considered prior conclusions and facts it had previously considered it its Rule 11(b) analysis in a § 285 analysis.

In re Asustek Computer, Inc., No. 2023-122 (March 1, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 10,595,376, 10,715,235, 7,729,728

Key point(s):

• Defendant must show a clear and undisputable right to its entitlement to a stay of discovery deadlines pending the outcome Defendant’s transfer request.

In re Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd., No. 2023-111 (March 1, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 10,222,526, 11,131,794, 9,588,269

Key point(s):

• A foreign defendant challenging personal jurisdiction and seeking a transfer of venue has the burden to clearly show that the case might have been brought in the transferee forum.

Trustid, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc., No. 2022-1433 (March 1, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 8,238,532, 9,001,985

Key point(s):

• Each element of a claim under the Lanham Act must be proven to recover damages, not just “willful” conduct.

Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, No. 2022-1083 (March 1, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,225,588

Key point(s):

• It was legal error to re-define petitioners’ properly raised obvious contentions.