Download PDF

HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, No. 2022-1696 (May 2, 2023) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No(s). 9,980,498

Key point(s):

• A single reference in the specification and a single claim limitation was insufficient to warrant adding an additional inventor to an already issued patent.

Guardant Health Inc. v. Vidal, No. 2021-1104 (May 5, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,834,822

Key point(s):

• Multiple definitions of a term within a specification may defeat an argument that a patentee is his own lexicographer.

Larry v. Intel Corporation, No. 2023-1257 (May 5, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 7,385,497, 8,106,752, 9,096,189, 9,589,439, 10,163,287, 10,984,619, RE43,891

Key point(s):

• General, conclusory remarks are insufficient to bring an antitrust suit.
• To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in a patent infringement case, more than a mere listing of the patent claims and the defendant’s products is required.
• It may not be an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss a frivolous suit with prejudice.