On February 21, 2023, Magistrate Judge Aaron of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recommended that the District Court grant defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss patent claims, finding that the claims of the asserted patent were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.  Stylitics, Inc. v. Findmine, Inc., Case No. 1-22-cv-02983 (S.D.N.Y. February 21, 2023).

​On March 13, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) dismissing as unreviewable a lawsuit challenging the instructions of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) regarding the standard for discretionary denial of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) based on pending parallel litigation involving the same patents.  Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 2022-1249, —F.4th— (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023).  The CAFC affirmed the unreviewability dismissal of the challenge to the Fintiv instructions as contrary to statute and arbitrary and capricious but reversed and remanded the dismissal of the challenge to the instructions as improperly issued without a notice-and-comment period.

On February 24, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a final written decision by the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), finding the challenged claim not unpatentable as obvious.  Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, No. 2022-0138 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023).  In doing so, the CAFC held that the PTAB improperly required the petitioner to show the prior art references could be “bodily incorporated.”

On February 15, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity under the public use bar of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), based on the patentee’s disclosure of devices having the patented technology at an industry event.  Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 2021-2246 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023).  The Court found that the patentee had allowed sophisticated industry members to scrutinize the devices closely, such that they would have understood the invention, without any obligations of confidentiality.

On February 10, 2023, Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Katherine K. Vidal issued a decision affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision to deny institution of inter partes review. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (Feb. 10, 2023). The Board had found, and Director Vidal agreed, that Petitioners’ expert testimony was entitled to little weight because it merely repeated, verbatim, the conclusory arguments in the petition itself. Director Vidal’s decision is “word from the top” that the practice of simply “parroting” a petition’s arguments in the expert declaration is strongly disfavored and unlikely to carry the day on invalidity.

On February 17, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska in Case No. 8:22-cv-00314-CRZ, where Judge Brian C. Buescher had granted a preliminary injunction against appellant plaintiff.  Lite-Netics LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. February 17, 2023).  In its order, the CAFC held that the district court abused its discretion by barring plaintiff from suggesting to customers that appellee defendant is a patent infringer and that they might be sued.

On February 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a petition for writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.) to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.).  In re Google LLC, No. 2023-101, —F.4th— (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023).  The Federal Circuit found that the W.D. Tex. clearly abused its discretion in, inter alia, weighing the court congestion factor against transfer where plaintiff did not compete in the market and is not threatened in the market in a way that might otherwise add urgency to case resolution.
 

On February 8, 2023, in a precedential order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny CyWee Group Ltd.’s (“CyWee’s”) request for rehearing of two IPR proceedings.  In doing so, the CAFC rejected CyWee’s argument that the Director is required to actually review, or be able to review, all institution decisions and final written decisions within the statutory time frames set by 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(11) and 314(b).  CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 2020-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023).
 

On January 9, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted writs of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:21-cv-00045-JRG and 2:21-cv-00046-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, vacated district court orders transferring two patent cases to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and instructing the court to recall the cases.  In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, __F.3d _(Fed. Cir. January 9, 2023).  In its order, the CAFC held that defendants could not avoid application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) by merely consenting to jurisdiction in a district other than the one chosen by plaintiff.

On January 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holding that certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,067 (’067 patent) were not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC. v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 2022-1468, (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023).  The CAFC panel (Taranto, Chen, and Stoll) reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and reached the same conclusion as the district court:  the representative claim is directed to an abstract idea containing no inventive concept and the patent is not eligible for patent protection.

On December 29, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal of an order by the District of Utah maintaining the confidentiality of defendant’s source code and denying access by plaintiff’s in-house counsel.  Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., No. 2021-1838 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022).  The Federal Circuit found that the district court decision did not satisfy the factors of the collateral order doctrine so as to permit interlocutory review because the order would be reviewable after a final judgment.

On December 20, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding in part, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a patent infringement and trade dress litigation between money-clip wallet competitors Mosaic Brands, Inc. (“Mosaic”) and Ridge Wallet LLC (“Ridge”).  Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, Appeal No. 22-1001 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2022).

On December 8, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding that certain patent claims were unpatentable in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding renders a similar claim of a related patent unpatentable based on collateral estoppel. Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., No. 2021-2218 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022).

On November 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington striking portions of a plaintiff’s expert report and granting summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant.  Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., No. 21-1171 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).  The CAFC found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to strike portions of the report, nor did it err in its finding that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence of non-infringement.

On November 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) allowing claim amendments during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that addressed issues additional to those raised by the grounds relied upon for institution of the IPR. Am. Nat’l Mfg. Inc. v. Sleep No. Corp., Nos. 2021-1321, 1323, 1379, 1382, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022). The Court found that the PTAB had not erred when it permitted Sleep Number, the patent owner, to submit claim amendments in IPR that addressed Section 112 issues (which were additional to amendments addressing the instituted grounds).

On November 8, 2022, in a precedential order, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Apple Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus vacating the scheduling order of the District Court for the Western District of Texas and directing that court to stay all proceedings on the merits and resolve Apple’s pending motion to transfer.  While the CAFC did not decide the extent to which merits discovery may proceed while issues of venue and venue discovery are still pending, it nevertheless ruled that transfer decisions must “proceed expeditiously” as “the first order of business.”  In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).
 

On November 1, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a summary judgment decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, finding asserted claims from a family of related patents indefinite and thus invalid. Finjan LLC, Inc. v. ESET, LLC, No. 2021-2093 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2022). The CAFC held, inter alia, that the district court’s construction of the term “Downloadable,” appearing in all asserted claims, was improperly restricted to the narrowest of competing definitions provided in the patent family.

On October 19, 2022, the Federal Circuit, on a petition for writ of mandamus, vacated and remanded an order by Judge Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) denying FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.’s motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Tennessee (WDTN). In re FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 2022-156 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022). The Court found that the district court had erred in its analysis of the local interest factor and had failed to provide a sufficient explanation regarding witness-related factors, the latter of which left the Court “unable to effectively conduct mandamus review on the present record.”

On October 17, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the ruling of the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.) that patents directed to abstract ideas absent a transformative inventive concept are not deemed to be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., No. 2021-2350, -- F.4th -- (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2022).

On October 4, 2022, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “Director”) issued a precedential decision finding that the conduct of Petitioner OpenSky Industries, LLC (“OpenSky”) was an abuse of process, sanctioning Petitioner, and remanding to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) for further proceedings.  OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2022).

On September 30, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a petition for writ of mandamus challenging, inter alia, the denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.).  In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., No. 2022-153, -- F.4th --  (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2022).  Noting that mandamus review is not ordinarily available for rulings on improper venue motions, a panel majority found that the district court’s fact-specific ruling does not involve the type of broad, fundamental and recurring legal question or usurpation of judicial power that warrants the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

On September 16, 2022, Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas denied three related Defendants’ motion to transfer venue, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, on the grounds that venue in California would be improper for one of the moving Defendants, a holding company.  MOV-ology LLC v. BigCommerce Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 6-22-cv-00084 (WDTX).

On September 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a Report and Recommendation regarding certain foreign defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to perfect service of process.  Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00126-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022).  Judge Payne recommended denying the motion, finding that service on an agent of the foreign defendants’ U.S. subsidiary was proper.

On September 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a district court dismissal under the duplicative-litigation doctrine.  Under the duplicative-litigation doctrine, plaintiffs cannot “maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court … against the same defendant.”  Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 2021-1967, 2022 BL 313997 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2022).

On August 31, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a determination of non-infringement by the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Although the CAFC disagreed with the ITC as to whether the claims were directed towards capability, the CAFC nevertheless affirmed the finding of non-infringement because the capability had not been proven.  INVT SPE LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2020-1903, -- F.4th -- (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2022).

On August 29, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion in a consolidated appeal relating to two inter partes reexamination (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding all challenged claims of United States Patent 6,393,096 unpatentable.  Best Medical Int’l., Inc. v. Elekta Inc., Nos. 2021-2099, 2021-2100 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2022).  The CAFC held, inter alia, that Appellant patentee lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s IPR unpatentability decision with respect to a claim that Appellant previously had canceled in an ex parte reexamination (“reexamination”).

On August 17, 2022, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity, finding that IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) barred Ingenio, Inc.’s invalidity argument, even though the challenged claim had not been addressed by the PTAB in the final written decision in Ingenio’s IPR.  Click-to-Call Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2022-1016 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2022).

On August 12, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which found unpatentable the challenged claims of a patent relating to housings for ultrasonic flow meters. Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).

On August 3, 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered that four patent cases—two patent infringement actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and one declaratory judgment action each in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Texas—be consolidated in the Eastern District of Texas and that the Honorable J. Rodney Gilstrap shall preside over the multidistrict district litigation.  In re Taasera Licensing, LLC, Pat. Litig., No. MDL 3042 (J.P.M.L.).

On July 27, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) awarding fees incurred by defendant for two proceedings under its inherent equitable powers and denying fees incurred in earlier, related proceedings.  Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Nos. 2021-1484, 2021-1485, 2021-1518, 2021-1519 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022).  The CAFC found that the C.D. Cal. did not abuse its discretion in granting attorney’s fees incurred in the C.D. Cal. as a result of the patentee’s improper forum shopping to avoid an adverse ruling, but denying fees incurred in earlier district court and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings because there was no evidence that plaintiff knew or should have known at that time that its claims were weak.

On July 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming a judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Delaware (Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly) that plaintiff's organ transplant diagnosis patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter.  CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022).  In its decision, the CAFC held that the district court correctly found the asserted claims to be directed to a natural phenomenon and that the claimed combination of steps is not inventive.

On July 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sanctioned plaintiff-appellant Pop Top Corp. for the filing of a frivolous appeal, granting defendant-appellee Rakuten Kobo Inc. $107,748 in attorney’s fees and doubled costs.  Pop Top Corp. v. Rakuten Kobo Inc., No. 21-2174 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2022).

On June 30, 2022, Judge Noreika of the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that certain asserted claims were indefinite and modified her construction of the term that formed the basis of defendants’ indefiniteness argument.  Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Case No. 17-1612, (D. Del. June 30, 2022).

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a request for rehearing, vacated its prior decision, and reversed the district court’s decision that the patent claim was not invalid for inadequate written description.  Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc., No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022).

On June 3, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the correction of an obvious minor clerical error in the asserted claim language and a judgment of willfulness by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”).  Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., No. 2021-1834 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2022).  The CAFC found that the CDCA properly corrected an obvious minor clerical error in the asserted claims and held that defendant’s reliance on such error was not a defense to willful infringement.

On May 26, 2022, Judge Joan M. Azrack of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue on account of plaintiffs’ failure to plead sufficient venue-related allegations, and further denied plaintiffs’ request for venue discovery.  UI Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Ricoma International Corp., et al., 2-22-cv-00220 (May. 26, 2022).

On May 23, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted writs of mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, directing the district court to transfer patent cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  In re Google LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC held that the district court abused its discretion in failing to weigh the local interest factor in favor of transferee forum and erred in its analysis of other factors.

On May 20, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), remanding for the PTAB to resolve a factual dispute over inventorship that it had left unaddressed.  Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., No. 2021-1179 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2022).

On May 6, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Konda v. Flex Logic Techs., Inc., No. 2022-1162, __ F. App’x __ (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022).  The PTAB agreed that a prior art reference rendered unpatentable the challenged claims.

On April 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which found that the Petitioner, Auris Health, Inc. (“Auris”), had failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious based on evidence of general skepticism about the field of invention.  Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. April 29, 2022).

On April 7, 2022, Judge Selna of the United States District Court for the Central District of California (CDCA) granted plaintiff’s motion for a presumption of patent infringement and to shift the burden pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295.  PureCircle USA Inc. et al v. SweeGen, Inc. et al, 8-18-cv-01679.

On April 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for lack of personal jurisdiction by the United States District Court for the Norther District of California (NDCA).  Apple, Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., No. 2021-1760 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2022).  The CAFC found that the NDCA erred in applying a bright-line rule that patent infringement notice letters can never form the basis for personal jurisdiction.

On April 4, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion vacating claim constructions ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:17-cv-12375-IT, Judge Indira Talwani.  Littelfuse, Inc. v.  Mersen USA EP Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. April 4, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC concluded that the district court’s constructions incorrectly limited claim scope to a preferred embodiment and rendered certain dependent claims superfluous.

On April 1, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a district court’s claim construction and corresponding summary judgement of non-infringement decisions.  The lower court had improperly relied on extrinsic evidence to determine what had been disclaimed by the applicant during prosecution.  Genuine Enabling Tech. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., No. 2020-2167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).

On March 18, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of a petition for inter partes review filed by Google LLC challenging a patent asserted against it in an ITC investigation and a parallel district court case. Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2021-01578, Paper 9 (PTAB Mar. 18, 2022).  The PTAB’s denial relied primarily on the late stage of the ITC investigation.

On March 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. (“Repifi”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because the asserted claims are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. IntelliCentrics, Inc., __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022).

On March 3, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas entered a redacted copy of its February 24, 2022 order striking plaintiff’s expert report on damages and excluding the testimony of its damages expert.  Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00073-ADA, Dkt. No. 173 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022).  The Court found the expert’s initial, timely-served report used the wrong parties in his hypothetical negotiation analysis and, for that reason, could not withstand defendant’s Daubert challenge.  On the other hand, the expert’s “supplemental” report re-doing his analysis with the correct parties was untimely and thus stricken.

On February 25, 2022, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) filed a redacted copy of its February 11, 2022 order denying a motion to dismiss for improper venue.  WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing & Dev. v. Canon Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00980-ADA, Dkt. No. 137 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2022).  The WDTX, applying a more relaxed burden for purposes of establishing venue through an alter ego theory, found that defendant had a regular and established place of business in the District through the office of its wholly-owned subsidiary.

On February 23, 2022, Judge Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) granted plaintiff’s motion to sever defendant’s counterclaims asserting patent infringement of claims directed to technologies that are distinct from those at-issue in plaintiff’s offensive case.  United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, NA, 2-20-cv-00319.

On February 10, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 2:13-cv-04606-MSG, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg, granting plaintiff-appellee’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity of an asserted design patent under the on-sale bar.  Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022).  In its order, the CAFC held that a letter offering a quotation for product covered by the patent does constitute an offer for sale under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).