August 30, 2017
Authored and Edited by Paula E. Miller; Lillian R. Phares; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Nidec Motor Co. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., No. 16-2321 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that claims directed to a low-noise HVAC system were invalid as obvious. Broad Ocean had requested joinder of two petitions, the first was instituted on obviousness grounds and the second was directed to only anticipation grounds. While the Board originally found the second petition was time barred, on rehearing, an expanded panel of five judges instituted review of the second petition and granted joinder.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the prior art did not teach away from the asserted combination because it did not discourage use of the technology. The Court also found no need to examine the Board’s construction of the preamble term “HVAC system” because the Board stated that the prior art taught an HVAC system whether or not the preamble was limiting. Because the Court held the claims were invalid as obvious, it did not need to reach a conclusion as to the anticipation grounds or the Board’s joinder decision.
In a concurring opinion by Judge Dyk, and joined by Judge Wallach, the judges thought “serious questions” were raised regarding the Board’s position on joinder and expanded panels. The judges also expressed concern that the joinder provision should not apply to add new patentability issues and circumvent the time bar by adding time-barred issues to an otherwise timely proceeding. In their view, expanded panels were being used inappropriately; though the judges recognized the importance of uniformity in decisions, they questioned whether the practice of expanded panels was the appropriate mechanism to achieve uniformity.
Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2024
April 3-4, 2024
Washington
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
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.