June 9, 2023
Authored and Edited by Safiya Aguilar; Ryan V. McDonnell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
On June 5, the Federal Circuit issued two decisions affirming the Board’s findings of nonobviousness in Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L, No. 2021-2357 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 5, 2023) and Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L, No. 2021-2359 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 5, 2023).
Medtronic requested inter partes reviews of several Teleflex patents relating to cardiac catheters at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Relevant to No. 2021-2357, the Board held numerous claims not unpatentable after finding that Teleflex’s “strong objective evidence of obviousness” overcame Medtronic’s prima facie case of obviousness.
On appeal, Medtronic argued that the Board erred in crediting Teleflex’s secondary considerations and, among other things, “ignoring” Medtronic’s motivations to combine. The Federal Circuit disagreed, determining that the Board correctly found that a presumption of nexus applied and that Teleflex’s evidence of Medtronic having access to, and Medtronic’s competitor product being substantially similar to, Teleflex’s patented product was “more than sufficient” and “particularly persuasive” to support a finding of copying.
As to Medtronic’s prima facie case, the Federal Circuit concluded that the alleged legal errors were “mere[ly] disagreement with the Board’s fact finding.” Moreover, the court found that, “[e]ven accepting Medtronic’s arguments concerning the prior art’s disclosures and motivations to combine” as true, “the unusually strong objective evidence in this case strongly supports a determination of nonobviousness.”
The Federal Circuit took a similar approach in affirming the Board’s determination of nonobviousness in No. 2021-2359—finding that Medtronic’s arguments were “premised on an assertion of fact contrary to the Board’s findings” not legal error, and that the “Board’s decision to credit Teleflex’s experts over Medtronic’s does not render its finding unsupported by substantial evidence.”
In each appeal, Medtronic also argued that the Board erred in granting Teleflex’s motion to amend certain claims for lack of written description. Applying its holding in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., the Federal Circuit explained in No. 2021-2359 that “the absence of embodiments” in the application “did not preclude written description” so long as a skilled artisan would reasonably conclude that the applicant possessed the subject matter of the amended claims.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.