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.
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.
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Webinar
September 10, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.