"[A]rgues that the district court erred in its (1) conclusion that the preambles of claims 1 and 10 (which depends from claim 1) of the ’913 patent and claim 47 of the ’022 patent are limiting and (2) construction of the term “universal.” "

"[t]he preamble at issue furnishes essential meaning to the claim. The claim does not merely recite a gripper with a plurality of prongs and a screw guide. It recites one that is, as the district court explained, “capable of manipulating and inserting ‘a universal, intervertebral bone fusion spacer’ into a disc space” . . . The “Background of the Invention” section describes “[t]he present invention” as relating “to a unique universal bidirectional screw (BDS) system” (emphasis CAFC's) . . . We conclude that because the drafter “cho[se] to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the one the patent protects.” (emphasis in original)."

"“[U]niversal[ity]” is a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention and thus, even if considered alone, we would conclude that it is limiting . . . Moskowitz argues that the district court’s construction incorrectly requires “a hypothetical one-size-fits-all intervertebral bone fusion spacer/bi-directional transvertebral screw fusion device to be suitable for implantation in every region of the spine for every patient” . . . We see no error in the district court’s construction. The district court pointed to the patents’ specifications, which provide for multiple uses in all three spinal regions . . . the patents unambiguously describe the device as being adaptable across spinal regions and usable with multiple surgical approaches. That adaptability makes the design “universal.”"

"Versata argues that under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it is allowed to pursue unjust enrichment damages as a matter of statutory right. We agree with Versata that it was entitled to pursue unjust enrichment damages; the district court legally erred when it precluded Versata from doing so . . . We . . . conclude that Versata may seek unjust enrichment damages under the DTSA and the MUTSA as a matter of law . . . The district court’s reliance in this case on precedent where the parties’ licensing history was used to calculate damages to categorically preclude recovery of unjust enrichment damages is misplaced."

"Versata argues that the district court erred in reducing the jury award because it presented sufficient evidence for the jury to accurately calculate damages. We agree and conclude that the district court erred when it reduced the jury award from $82,260,000 to $3. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s JMOL Decision and reinstate the jury award for breach of contract damages"

"Ford argues that “Versata offered insufficient evidence that Ford had knowledge of each alleged combination trade secret.” . . . That is, Ford claims that Versata provided no evidence that it identified the specific “bundles of features [Grid, Buildability, and Workspaces of the ACM software] to Ford” but instead provided hundreds of documents to Ford containing these trade secrets . . Therefore, because Versata failed to demonstrate that Ford had specific knowledge of the ACM combination trade secrets, Ford argues that the district court’s judgment on trade secret liability must be reversed. Neither the DTSA nor the MUTSA, however, requires a plaintiff to show a defendant’s knowledge of specific elements of combination trade secrets . . . Nothing in the language of either statute requires the degree of specific knowledge of the exact combination of a trade secret that Ford urges us to read in."

"[Defendant] asserted that summary judgment was warranted because Viavi’s infringement contentions identified only the 11246 Filter, which had been released of any pre-May 1, 2020 infringement and that had not been manufactured or sold since May 1, 2020 . . . [Plaintiff] opposed the summary judgment motion . . . It contended that the scope of the case went beyond the 11246 Filter, even as that was the only filter included in the claim charts accompanying Viavi’s complaint. Further, Viavi contended it was entitled to reasonable discovery from PTOT so that it could obtain information about any of PTOT’s filters that were incorporated into the major company’s devices."

"In fact, as soon as Viavi finally purchased several of the major company’s devices, it discovered that the only non-Viavi filter being used in one of these devices was not the 11246 Filter . . . After learning this, Viavi even initiated a new action wherein it sued based only on Filter #25, not on the 11246 Filter. Therefore, Viavi’s own actions indicate that, with a more searching pre-suit investigation, it “would have not filed” the suit it ended up filing here."

1. "First, Netlist argues that the Board erred by determining that Ellsberry teaches data paths that are enabled “in accordance with a latency parameter,” as recited in limitation"; and
2. "Second, Netlist argues the Board erred by determining that Ellsberry teaches “enabl[ing]” a “data path,” as recited by limitations [1e] and [1f]"

"The Board’s reliance on Ellsberry’s teachings, as supported by the JEDEC standards, constitutes substantial evidence that Ellsberry teaches enabling data paths in accordance with a latency parameter."

"Netlist further argues that, even if the Board had substantial evidence to find that Ellsberry uses latency information to control data paths, the Board erred by using the ’537 patent, which was not part of Samsung’s petition ground, to supply the missing limitation of enabling the data paths at the required time to account for the buffer . . . According to Netlist, the Board’s explanation shows that it impermissibly expanded the role of the ’537 patent from mere evidence of the general skill in the art to that of a prior art reference. This would violate the restriction that the Board may not depart from the petition and find claims invalid on grounds “of [its] own design."

"[A]ny potential error was harmless because the Board alternatively found that Ellsberry alone, without relying on the ’537 patent, teaches adding one clock cycle to account for propagation delay through its switch ASICs"

"Netlist argues this paragraph [of the Ellsberry reference] does not teach enabling the claimed “data path” because Ports A and B that it refers to are located outside of the switch ASIC (i.e., the claimed buffer) instead of within the switch ASIC, as required by the claims." (emphasis in the original)