直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Scratches Out District Court Determination that Rock Carving is Analogous Prior Art for Circuit Board Interface Plates

July 30, 2015

Authored and Edited by Forrest A. Jones; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Aaron Gleaton Clay

In Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., No 15-1155 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2015), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s judgment as a matter of law that three patents were obvious in light of the prior art. At trial, QXQ argued that rock carving, where a varnish is applied to rocks and scraped off to make a design, is analogous to circuit board interface plates, where an additional layer of paint is applied and then scraped off to mark holes. Not convinced, the jury determined the patents were nonobvious over the rock carving prior art. Following the jury’s verdict, the district court overturned the jury and found the patents were obvious over this art.

First, the Court noted that the underlying facts are presumed to have been resolved in favor of the winning party, here the patent owner, and then it determines if the legal conclusion is correct in light of those facts. With this background, the Court found the jury’s factual determination that the prior art was not analogous was supported by substantial evidence. The Court stated that the question for analogous art is not whether an inventor knows of prior art, but whether they would look to the art to solve the problem. The Court also stated that the determination that the differences between the prior art and the claims were significant was also a finding of fact, and supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court reversed the district court’s finding of obviousness.

Tags

Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), Obviousness (35 USC § 103)

Contacts

Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 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.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP