"The cultured host cells required by the claims are undisputedly human made. They do not exist in nature . . . however, the district court determined that none of the individual naturally occurring components in the claims had been changed and that “combin[ing] natural products and put[ting] them in a host cell does not make the invention patentable under § 101."

"Like the man-made plasmid combining four naturally occurring bacteria in Chakrabarty, the claimed nucleic acid molecules here, although containing naturally occurring segments of DNA, are “not nature’s handiwork” and “not . . . a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but . . . a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter” . . . Similarly, like the cDNA claims in Myriad, “the lab technician unquestionably creates something new” when she splices together the claimed recombinant nucleic acid molecule that encodes an AAV vp1 capsid protein and a heterologous nonAAV sequence and inserts said molecule into a host cell . . . [C]ontrary to the district court’s holding, the claims here are distinguishable from those in Funk Brothers. In concluding that the asserted claims are like those in Funk Brothers, the district court found that “[t]aking ‘two sequences from two different organisms and put[ting] them together’ is no different than taking two strains of bacteria and mixing them together” . . . This analogy is flawed and inconsistent with the undisputed scientific evidence in the record . . . the claimed host cells here contain a recombinant nucleic acid molecule that, by definition, is markedly different from anything occurring in nature."

"VideoLabs does not meaningfully dispute the Board’s construction, but argues the Board erred by (1) considering Unified’s argument, raised for the first time in its Reply, that Sonohara discloses the “syntactical meaning” portion of the construction for “content-related . . . data segments,” and (2) determining that Sonohara disclosed “content-related . . . data segments” as construed."

Regarding 1), CAFC acknowledges that petitioner had an opportunity to respond under Axionics ("Unified was entitled to an opportunity to respond").

Regarding 2), CAFC finds adequate support in the record ("The Board reasonably relied upon this testimony from Unified’s expert to support its finding that a skilled artisan would infer “syntactical meaning” in the originating files after reviewing the file production process and header and track information in the composite file.").

"[T]he specification describes FIG. 4A’s logic block 34, a logic design circuit containing a multitude of elements, as the corresponding structure for performing the synchronizing function. Because GET and its expert failed to account for many of the elements in block 34 in their infringement analysis, we agree with the district court that GET presented a deficient infringement case as to this limitation and we thus affirm . . . Dr. Fernald offers no meaningful explanation of why the bit-rate clock is the only part of logic block 34 that matters. GET does not argue now, nor did it attempt to argue before the district court, that the other elements of logic block 34 are, e.g., devoted to only the encoding function and therefore may be ignored for the purposes of synchronization. Thus, the district court found that Dr. Fernald was deficient in his explanation of why he had considerably curbed his analysis of logic block 34 to just one of its elements . . . Like the expert in Traxcell Technologies, Dr. Fernald has “neglected to address a significant fraction” of logic block 34. "