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

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 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