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

Licenses Do Not Require Nexus to Specific Claims to Be Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness, and Substantial Licensing Fees Should Be Given the Significance That Their Magnitude Deserves

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.

Tags

non-obviousness, Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA), combining references, secondary considerations of non-obviousness, claim construction

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure

Gaming

Related Offices

Palo Alto, CA

Reston, VA

Contacts

Luke H. MacDonald, Ph.D.
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2742
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email

*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

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

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