Eurica Califorrniaa v. Vidal, No. 2022-1640; (November 7, 2022) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,245,075

Key point(s):

• When determining patent term adjustment, applicant’s filing of an after-allowance amendment constitutes a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution.

Chikezie Ottah v. Bracewell LLP, No. 2022-1876; (November 8, 2022) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,152,840

Key point(s):

• Legal advice, absent a showing of malicious intent or personal interest, is not sufficient to support a claim of induced infringement against the law firm providing the advice.

SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 2021-2311; (November 9, 2022) (precedential) (3-0); Trademark No. 6,080,195

Key point(s):

• Scrutinizing the prosecution history of a trademark application and deciding whether the trademark examiner was correct to issue the trademark registration in the first place does not overcome the statutory presumption of validity.

AMP Plus, Inc. d/b/a ELCO Lighting v. DMF, Inc., Nos. 2021-1595, 2021-1636; (November 10, 2022) (nonprecedential) ; Patent No. 9,964,266

Key point(s):

• The PTAB’s judgment must be reviewed on the grounds upon which the PTAB actually relied and alternative grounds supporting the PTAB’s decision will not be considered.