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

They Could Have Found It: Federal Circuit Reverses Board on Public Accessibility

August 10, 2018

Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 17-1894, 17-1936 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determination that a product catalog for digital cameras was not publicly available when the catalog had been distributed at an annual, dealer-only trade show for action sports vehicles.

In an IPR, non-patent literature prior art must qualify as a printed publication, meaning it must be publicly accessible. Prior art is publicly accessible if persons ordinarily skilled and interested in the art could have located it exercising reasonable diligence. In this case, the Board instituted GoPro’s petitions challenging Contour’s patents directed to digital point-of-view cameras for action sports. The instituted obviousness grounds relied on a GoPro catalog, copies of which were distributed at a dealer-only trade show for sports vehicles attended by 150 vendors and 1,000 patrons. Contour argued that the catalog was not publicly accessible and therefore not a printed publication because the trade show was not announced to the public, open to the public, or camera-specific. The Board agreed with Contour, finding that GoPro failed to demonstrate publicly accessibility of the catalog and thus failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious.

On appeal, the Court held that the Board applied the public-accessibility doctrine too narrowly. The Court reasoned because the cameras were intended for use in rugged, extreme environments, and because they were advertised as having such utility with off-road vehicles, persons of skill interested in point-of-view action cameras would have attended the trade show expecting to find action cameras and accompanying literature. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the Board’s decision.

Tags

America Invents Act (AIA), Obviousness (35 USC § 103), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Sydney R. Kestle
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4241
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2018 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

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

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

July 8, 2026

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

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

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