June 27, 2025
Authored and Edited by Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.; Erik R. Puknys; *Olivia L. Snakard
In Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 2023-1674 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB decision that misapplied the law on secondary considerations of nonobviousness, especially on the issue of whether there was nexus to evidence of licensing.
Roku and Nintendo challenged claims of Ancora’s patent in two IPRs. Ancora raised secondary considerations of nonobviousness in opposition, citing industry praise and licensing. But, in finding the claims obvious, the Board found Ancora had not established a nexus between these considerations and the challenged claims.
Ancora appealed. While the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board on other issues in the case (claim construction, prima-facie obviousness, and its nexus analysis of industry praise), the Court held the Board erred in its nexus analysis for licensing.
First, the Court found the Board incorrectly required a nexus between a license and the challenged claims. The Federal Circuit reasoned “[u]nlike products, which may incorporate numerous features beyond those claimed ... and therefore may require careful parsing to establish a nexus, actual licenses to the subject patent do not demand the same, as they are, by their nature, directly tied to the patented technology.” The Court also clarified that nexus law does not require a patent be the only patent in a license agreement or the sole motivation for licensing.
Second, the Court found the Board did not give appropriate weight to licensing fees. The Court found the Board failed to give “substantial license fees” made near the end of a four-year lawsuit that “far exceeded” costs of litigation the “significance that their magnitude deserves.” The Court also noted that the Board failed to evaluate certain other “low-value” licenses.
The Court thus vacated and remanded to reconsider nexus as it pertains to licensing.
non-obviousness, Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA), combining references, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, claim construction
*Olivia L. Snakard is a Summer Associate at Finnegan.
Copyright © 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
Webinar
Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights
July 15, 2026
Webinar
Federal Circuit IP Blog
July 8, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
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.