Khan v. Artivion, Inc., No. 2023-2347 (July 16, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,747,344

Key point:

• If there are two related cases where a first case is final (and un-appealed or unsuccessfully appealed) prior to the second, collateral estoppel to applies to the second case if (1) the issue at stake in each case are identical, (2) the issue was actually litigated, (3) the determination of the issue was a necessary part of the judgment, and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair chance to litigate the issue.

Khan v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc., No. 2023-2329 (July 16, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,747,344

Key point:

• A patentee may not rely on the doctrine of equivalents to assert infringement against a device that falls within the scope of what the patentee disclaimed during prosecution.

Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., Nos. 2023-2367, 2023-2368, 2024-1016, 2024-1017 (July 16, 2024) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point(s):

• The 100-mile limit on subpoenas under FRCP 45 applies only to subpoenas requested by a party or attorney, not subpoenas issued sua sponte by the court.
• The district court has wide discretion to exercise its “inherent powers,” including compelling non-parties to appear.

Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, No. 2022-1753, 2022-1999 (July 18, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent No. 10,043,188

Key point(s):

• A court can only invalidate claims that are asserted or challenged in the current proceeding.
• A claim that merely automates manual tasks may not be patent eligible.

Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. Limited, No. 2022-1912 (July 18, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 4,353,555

Key point(s):

• The patentee met its burden to show a reference was not prior art by relying on inventor testimony combined with multiple types of corroborating evidence.
• A reference that is not prior art can be considered as evidence of the knowledge of a POSITA under appropriate circumstances.

Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLC, No. 2023-1638 (July 18, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,095,879

Key point:

• While the Board had implicitly construed a claim term, its construction was correct.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Neonode Smartphone LLC, No. 2023-1464 (July 18, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 8,095,879

Key point:

• Where there is only one limitation in dispute, whether the claim as a whole is invalid for obviousness settles down to whether the specific limitation was obvious.

In Re Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., No. 2023-1063 (July 18, 2024) (nonprecedential); Patent Application No. 17/012,394

Key point(s):

• Evidence of motivation to combine findings may also support reasonable expectation of success.
• Declarations of prior art inventors are not entitled to unique weight.

Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation, No. 2022-2090 (July 19, 2024) (precedential) (3-0); Patent Nos. 10,368,155, 10,469,934, and 10,206,025

Key point(s):

• Even if an invalidity order is not final or appealable when issued, it becomes final and appealable when final judgment is issued.
• Failing to appeal or have an order invalidating claims vacated can moot a pending IPR.