" . . . presented testimony that the Nihei/Nantz combination satisfies all the limitations of the asserted claims, that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to combine Nihei and Nantz, and that secondary considerations do not support a conclusion of nonobviousness. However, the district court denied Autel’s motion for JMOL as to obviousness because it found substantial evidence that “Nihei and Nantz fail to teach or suggest the Asserted Claims’ ‘portable setting apparatus’ limitations” and accordingly “[did] not reach the other obviousness-related issues raised by the [p]arties.”"

"We determine that the Board erred by requiring Guardant to show that a skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the steps of amplification followed by sequencing and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing the amplification and sequencing steps because the prior art reference expressly discloses performing those steps in sequence and the Petition did not rely on modifying these two steps to arrive at the claimed invention . . . According to Guardant, a motivation to combine the steps was not required because the two steps were disclosed in a single embodiment in a single prior art reference. We agree. When the disputed elements of a claim are disclosed in a single embodiment in a single reference, no finding regarding a motivation to combine to arrive at those claimed elements is required . . . there is no need to show that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify a reference to per- form two claim steps one after the other when the reference itself already discloses those limitations together in the same sequence required by the claims."

2. A web conferencing system comprising: (a) a first client application allowing at least one presenting participant to share computer screen video, (b) said first client application also being arranged to allow said presenting participant to share at least one data stream selected from the group consisting of chat data, documents, web pages and white-boarding session, (c) storage means for recording said computer screen video and said data stream, and (d) a second client application allowing at least one observing participant to sense said computer screen video and said data stream live, (e) said second client application also being arranged to allow said observing participant to selectively sense a previously presented and recorded part of said computer screen video and said data stream while said presenting participant is sharing a current part of said computer screen video and said data stream, (f) said second client application also being arranged to allow said observing participant to selectively sense a previously presented and recorded part of said computer screen video and said data stream after said presenting participant has finished sharing a said computer screen video and, said data stream whereby said web conferencing system is able to simultaneously record said computer screen video and said data stream and allow said observing participant to sense current and previously presented parts of said computer screen video and said data stream.

• Before:
  • comparing (i) inside temperature at a point in time with
  • (ii) the estimated rate of change in temperature.
• After:
  • comparing (i) the actual rate of change in inside temperature with
  • (ii) the estimated rate of change.

Interesting precedential decision this morning regarding induced infringement of surgical devices ("[S]urgical techniques and tools for treating spinal deformities, such as scoliosis, that cause vertebrae, which are the small bones forming the backbone, to twist out of alignment") and expert testimony.

Below, following the experts' examination during trial, defendant renewed its motions to exclude their testimony and the DCT agreed ("Dr. Yassir’s testimony with respect to whether the Accused Tools contained the required “handle means” was inadmissible because it “varied from and contradicted” the court’s construction of “handle means,” thereby rendering it improper and unhelpful to the jury as the trier of fact . . . Dr. Neal’s survey methodology and results did not meet the standards of reliability required under Daubert, Federal Rule of Evidence 702(a), and Federal Rule of Evidence 403."). Absent the expert's evidence, the infringement contentions fell out, and so the DCT likewise granted JMOL. Here, while acknowledging that "[e]xpert opinion that contradicts the court’s claim construction is not helpful to the jury and, hence, should be excluded as unreliable under Rule 702(a)." Here, however, the CAFC majority does not agree that "Dr. Yassir’s testimony . . . [contradicted] the court’s claim construction" ("It was, instead, an application of that construction that a reasonable factfinder could have either accepted as persuasive or rejected as implausible"). Importantly, "DePuy did not object to any portion of Yassir’s direct examination as contradictory of the court’s construction or inadmissible" despite an in limine inadmissibility ruling to that effect.

Judge Prost dissents, however, believing that the testimony was unreliable and that CAFC should defer to the district court's gatekeeping function, particularly post-EcoFactor ("We just recently convened en banc to reassert the “essential prerequisite” of a court’s reliability determination for expert testimony to be considered by a jury. See EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC . . . the majority not only legally errs, it also makes no genuine attempt to explain how the district court abused its discretion in finding a contradiction of its claim construction.").

A contentious issue that will likely raise its head again and again in many different contexts.