Fullview v. Polycom, No. 2023-1201 (April 29, 2024) (nonprecedential) (3-0); Patent No. 6,128,143

Key point(s):

• It is important to provide competent evidence, including expert testimony, to establish or refute genuine disputes of material facts.
• Providing detailed expert testimony on the motivation to combine prior art references and detailing the benefits and simplicity of the resulting modifications can be crucial for obviousness determinations.

Araujo v. Framboise Holdings, No. 2023-1142 (April 30, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Trademark App No. 88/712823

Key point:

• A priority date may, by substantial evidence, be supported by the testimony of a single, interested witness.

Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corporation, No. 2022-2207 (May 1, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 7,233,247

Key point(s):

• Standing to bring a patent infringement suit requires a plaintiff retain at least one exclusionary right under the patent.
• Constitutional standing to bring suit requires a party to meet the injury-in-fact requirement with a showing that infringement would amount to an invasion of a right under the patent.

Kirsch Research and Development, LLC v. GAF Materials LLC, No. 2022-2063 (May 2, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 6,308,482

Key point:

• Both intrinsic (specification and prosecution history) and extrinsic (expert testimony) evidence can be used in determining claim construction.

Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc., No. 2022-2064 (May 2, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 6,665,725; 6,839,751; and 6,954,789

Key point:

• All aspects of a final judgment of infringement must be affirmed on appeal to be immune from collateral estoppel flowing from an affirmed IPR invalidity determination.

Packet Intelligence v. Juniper Networks, Nos. 2022-1398, 2022-1400, 2022-1401, 2022-1403, 2022-1404, 2022-1405, and 2022-1406 (May 2, 2024) (Nonprecedential) Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789.

Key point:

• Language following “for example” may not be viewed as providing definition.

Snaprays v. Lighting Defense Group, No. 2023-1184 (May 2, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 8,668,347

Key point:

• IP owners who use third-party programs such as Amazon’s APEX to enforce their rights can be subject to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringing party’s home state.

IOENGINE v. Ingenico, Nos. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, and 2021-1332 (May 3, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 8,539,047, 9,059,969, and 9,774,703

Key point(s):

• The printed matter doctrine applies only to information claimed for its communicative content, not to elements that serve a functional role in an invention
• Claim interpretations not proffered before the PTAB are not preserved for appeal.