October 2, 2019
Authored and Edited by Brooke M Wilner; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
The Federal Circuit took what it called an “unusual” step in Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., Nos. 2018-2029, 2018-2030 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 26, 2019) by reversing the Board’s determination that a reference was not a proper primary reference.
In this design patent IPR litigation regarding cylindrical object dispensers, the Board found that two proposed references were not proper primary references because each failed the “basically the same” test. The Board found that the first reference required substantial modifications, like adding a cylindrical object, to appear visually similar to the challenged design. The second reference failed because making that design “basically the same” as the challenged design would require changing its dimensions and removing parts. In both cases, the Board emphasized that the visual appearance of proper primary references cannot be modified using hindsight.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the second reference required modifications such that it could not be a proper primary reference. But the Federal Circuit disagreed regarding the first reference. Because that reference substantially visually resembled the challenged design and differed from that design only slightly, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s factual finding for lack of substantial evidence.
Judge Newman dissented, believing that the Board was correct about both references. In Judge Newman’s view, the fact that the first reference required any modification to arrive at a substantially similar design to the challenged patent rendered it an improper primary reference.
Copyright © 2019 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.
Articles
California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data
June 4, 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
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.