* Disclaimer:The following case summaries should not be relied upon as or for legal advice. Click here for more details.

In re: Surgisil, L.L.P., et al.
(Docket #: 2020-1940)(Fed. Cir. 2021)(PDF, 4 pages)
A design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim - it does not broadly cover a design in the abstract.
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al.
(U.S. 20-440)(S. Ct. 2021)(PDF, 38 pages)
Assignor estoppel does not apply if the assignee materially broadens the claims of a patent application after the assignor assigned the patent application.
U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al.
(U.S. 19-1434)(S. Ct. 2021)(PDF, 72 pages)
The Administrative Patent Judges (APJ's) of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are unconstitutionally appointed principal officers, but the proper remedy is to allow the USPTO Director to review final PTAB decisions and, if desired, issue decisions himself on behalf of the PTAB (this ruling vacates the Federal Circuit's remedy of invalidating the tenure protections of APJ's such that they can be removed at will).
Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.
(Docket #: 2020-1760)(Fed. Cir. 2021)(PDF, 18 pages)
A patent claim to an improved digital camera that includes the recitations of physical components including image sensors, an image memory, analog-to-digital converting circuitry, etc., is nonetheless directed to an abstract idea and is thus unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the physical components were all well-known and conventional and perform only their basic functions.
Gilbert P. Hyatt v. Andrew Hirshfeld (USPTO), et al.
(Docket #: 2019-1070)(Fed. Cir. 2021)(PDF, 42 pages)
Prosecution laches is an available defense for the USPTO in an action to obtain a patent under 35 U.S.C. §145.  The USPTO must generally prove intervening rights to establish prejudice for a prosecution laches defense, but an unreasonable and unexplained prosecution delay of six years or more raises a presumption of prejudice, including intervening rights. 
Google LLC. v. Oracle America, Inc.
(U.S. 18-956)(S. Ct. 2021)(PDF, 62 pages)
Google's copying of about 0.4 percent of Oracle's API code where the copied lines of code include declaring code that provides a "user interface" for programmers to select particular tasks qualifies as fair use.