"In Giannelli and Aspex Eyewear, we construed the term “adapted to,” not “configured to” or “configured for,” which are at issue here . . . Here, Blue Buffalo points to nothing in the claims or written description suggesting that “configured to” should be construed more narrowly than “capable of” . . . Unlike in Giannelli and Aspex Eyewear, these disclosures do not suggest that the sidewall or tool portion are specifically designed or constructed to achieve a certain objective—only that they are capable of doing so."

"This case falls squarely under Axonics. Here, the patent owner, Smart Mobile, did not propose its understanding of the scope of the limitations at issue—“plurality of antennas” and “using the plurality of antennas”—until its response after institution . . . Then the petitioner, Apple, presented argument and evidence in its reply that even under Smart Mobile’s new interpretation, Paulraj still satisfied the limitations. . . . notably, the Board refused to consider Apple’s reply arguments because it determined those arguments were “not grounded in or supported by the Petition or within the scope of reasonable reply arguments.” . . . In so refusing, the Board erred."

1. Regarding DuPont Factor 2 ("Nature of the goods and services"), CAFC finds substantial evidence for the Board's reasoning. While appellant argues that "there is no specific overlap between [its] services and those of the [C]ited [R]egistration", CAFC responds that the "law does not require a specific overlap between services to find that DuPont factor 2 weighs in favor of a likelihood of confusion."
2. Regarding DuPont Factor 3 ("Trade channels used"), CAFC finds the website evidence relied upon by the Board sufficient (" a reasonable mind could accept that evidence as adequate to find that the consuming public is likely to be confused as to the origin of the goods and services, due to the marks’ similarities of goods/ser- vices and similarities of trade channels").
3. Regarding DuPont Factor 1 ("Similarity or dissimilarity of marks"), while applicant opines that the marks weren't weighed in their entireties, CAFC finds "that the Board weighed SAZERAC STITCHES in its entirety and did not legally err by making a reasonable factual determination that SAZERAC is “dominant in[SAZERAC STITCHES] because it is the first term and the element most likely to be remembered.”"
4. CAFC concludes by noting that the factor weighting was appropriate ("Since the Board’s factual findings for each DuPont factor considered are supported by substantial evidence, and all factors favored a likelihood of confusion, we affirm the Board’s ultimate conclusion that “[Laurel Designs’] mark SAZERAC STITCHES is likely to cause confusion with the mark SAZERAC of the Cited Registration.”")

1. regarding the advertisements: "[W]hile the advertisements produced by OCS do state that the devices support “NETCONF” and “YANG,” they give no additional detail as to what specific versions of the standards they support";
2. regarding the claim charts: "The claim charts simply compare the language of the standards to the language of the asserted claims without showing that the Accused Products practice the standards"; and
3. regarding the opinion: "OCS’s produced legal opinion, regarding infringement, amounts to nothing more than unsworn attorney argument, which is not evidence."

"[I]n investigations that have a mixed result of a violation finding (subject to a presidential review period prior to the 60-day appeal window starting) and a no-violation finding (not subject to a presidential review period and so final for the purposes of starting the 60-day appeal window at the time it issues), the notices of appeal for the different findings have distinct appeal windows. Here, as to the Active Respondents, when the Commission’s determination of no violation was entered there was no presidential review period and no other administrative proceedings for that finding (unlike for the entry of an exclusion order against the Defaulting Respondents). Thus, the no violation finding was a final decision of the Commission on the day it issued and the 60- day period in Section 337(c) to file a notice of appeal began to run. That 60-day period ended on November 13, 2023, but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023. (emphasis added)

" . . . the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist order, or both, limited to that person unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion or order upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, the Commission finds that such exclusion or order should not be issued." (emphasis added)