September 6, 2023
Authored and Edited by Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Esther H. Lim; Annmarie Dressler†
In Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation, No. 22-1765 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded PTAB’s holding that all claims of U.S. Patent 9,630,692 are unpatentable as obvious.
In 2015, Volvo Penta launched the Forward Drive, which embodied the ’692 patent directed to a tractor-type stern drive for a boat. Brunswick later launched its own drive embodying the ’692 patent and filed an IPR against the ’692 patent the same day. The Board found all claims unpatentable as obvious. Volvo Penta appealed to the Federal Circuit but settled its dispute with Brunswick prior to oral argument. The USPTO intervened.
The Federal Circuit held that the Board’s motivation to combine was supported by substantial evidence, but the Board failed to correctly address secondary considerations of nonobviousness. First, the Federal Circuit found the Board erred in ignoring the Patent Owner’s evidence of nexus showing that the secondary considerations flowed directly from the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. Second, the Federal Circuit determined that the Board’s analysis of the objective evidence factors was “overly vague and ambiguous” and unsupported by substantial evidence. Evidence of copying was only given “some weight” even though copying is typically treated as strong evidence of nonobviousness. Also, the Board assigned multiple factors “some weight,” without sufficiently explaining why they were given the same weight. Finally, the Board did not explain why the aggregate weight of the objective evidence factors was insufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness. Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s determination.
†Annmarie Dressler is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.