PTAB’s Adoption of Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Modification of a Prior Art Reference Held Minimally Sufficient to Support its Obviousness Determination

IGNITE USA, LLC v. CAMELBAK PRODS., LLC: October 12, 2017 (non-precedential). Before Prost, Wallach, and Taranto.   Takeaway: PTAB’s adoption of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in its opinion was “sufficient, if minimally,” to explain the connection between its factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness. Procedural Posture: CamelBak Products, LLC petitioned for …

PTAB Erred by Relying on Inherency in Making Obviousness Determination Without Finding that the Limitation at Issue was Necessarily Present

SOUTHWIRE V. CERRO WIRE: Sep. 8, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and Hughes.   Takeaways: The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in relying on inherency in making a determination of obviousness, because PTAB did not find that the Summers reference necessarily would achieve a 30% reduction …

Federal Circuit Holds that Complaint for Patent Infringement Meets Iqbal / Twombly Pleading Standard

LIFETIME INDUS. V. TRIM-LOK: Sep. 7, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley.   Takeaways: The CAFC held that assembling the components of a patented invention is a form of direct infringement, and that because Lifetime alleged that Trim-Lok’s agent installed a seal onto an RV, and that the resulting seal-RV …

Decision on Attorney’s Fees Vacated and Remanded Because the District Court Used an Incorrect Standard and Made Multiple Errors

ROMAG FASTENERS v. FOSSIL:  August 9, 2017.  Before Newman (concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part), Dyk (majority), and Hughes.   Takeaway: The Lanham Act should have the same standard for recovering attorney’s fees as the Patent Act in light of Octane. In determining whether a case is exceptional for 35 U.S.C. § 285 fees, a district court …

A Claim Is Not Anticipated by a Reference Missing a Limitation, Even Though a Skilled Artisan Viewing the Reference Would At Once Envisage the Missing Limitation

Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd, March 14, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto.   Takeaway: Anticipation still requires each and every claim limitation to be present in a single prior art reference – missing limitations cannot be filled in simply because a skilled artisan would …