Posts Tagged: "graham v. john deere"

On behalf of nonprofit, U.S. Inventor, Inc., and over a dozen other amici, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC has submitted a Brief of Amici Curiae urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s notoriously error-ridden decision in the waterskiing case: Zup, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc. Reviewing this decision will be an excellent way to get obviousness doctrine back on track.

In that 2-1 decision (with Judge Newman dissenting), the Federal Circuit held that even “considerable” or “strong” objective evidence of nonobviousness will sometimes not save a patent from an obviousness ruling. That ruling is wrong. It is also out of touch with Supreme Court doctrine.

In order to establish that the commercial success factor supports a non-obviousness finding, the patentee must establish that a connection (or nexus) exists between the novel aspects of the patent claim(s) and the alleged commercial success. Id.; WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, the patentee must show that the novel aspects of the claim(s) are driving sales and not aspects of the claim(s) that were known in the prior art. In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011); WesternGeco, 889 F.3d at 1330. In cases brought pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, while there are exceptions, it is most common that patent challengers’ arguments focus predominantly or entirely on an alleged lack of nexus given the substantial sales typically enjoyed by the brand-name drug products that are the subject of such litigation. Though it bears noting that the mere fact that a company is pursuing a generic version of a brand-name drug, by itself, does not support a “commercial success” finding. Galderma Labs., Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 737, 740 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The focus of the appeal is the need for clarity with respect to hopelessly irreconcilable caselaw on the issue of single reference obviousness… Decisions from the Federal Circuit have created an irreconcilable split within the Federal Circuit itself regarding the proper approach to obviousness determinations, American Vehicular Sciences argues. Indeed, many commentators (ourselves included) have noticed that now more than ever on a variety of issues the outcome of a decision at the Federal Circuit is completely dependent on the panel assigned to the case. While that has been a criticism of the Federal Circuit for some time, it increasingly seems outcomes are arbitrary, capricious and wholly unpredictable— at least until you know who the judges are who will decide the case.

In Zup v. Nash Manufacturing, ZUP filed suit, alleging contributory infringement and induced infringement of the patent-at-issue, trade secret misappropriation under Virginia law, and breach of contract.  Nash counterclaimed, seeking declaratory judgment as to non-infringement and invalidity… Prior art references aiming to overcome problems similar to those addressed by a patent can support a motivation to combine invalidating references, and for evidence of a long-felt but unresolved need to be considered, the need must be solved by an invention that is more than minimally different from the prior art… Judge Newman dissented, finding that the majority applied an incorrect analysis of the obviousness factors. In her view, the prior art provides no suggestion to make the specific modifications made by the patent-at-issue, and the only source of those modifications is judicial hindsight.

The Board failed to address all grounds for proposed rejections under the APA by ignoring certain arguments made by Vicor during the reexamination. Additionally, the Board failed to address all four Graham factors. “[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors…must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious…” The Board’s decision was erroneous because the same panel reached inconsistent conclusions on the same issue between the same parties and on the same record, and without explanation.

Removing section 101 would remove the language granting patents only to processes, machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, or new and useful improvements thereof. These categories however have only rarely been used to limit patentablity. The Court has in fact described these terms as expansive. Their removal would not suddenly make the inventions found unpatentable by the Court as abstract ideas or articles of nature patentable. As shown by the discussion above, the judicial exceptions do not rest on a legal interpretation of section 101 in any of its forms. They come from Supreme Court precedent established BEFORE section 101 existed.

That being said, the possibility that a utility patent could be obtained cannot be definitively ruled out even if an invention seems quite likely to be obvious, which is one of the biggest problems with the law of obviousness. Indeed, one of the more frustrating things about working with the Patent Office is that there is a real lack of uniformity in application of the law of obviousness. For example, on January 7, 2014, the Patent Office granted U.S. Patent No. 8,622,700, which for all intents and purposes granted rights to the inventor to a glow in the dark ceiling fan blade. If this claim to a glow-in-the-dark ceiling fan blade is ever challenged I see no way that it could survive, but the patent issued.