April 8, 2019
Authored and Edited by Connor J. Hansen; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc., Nos. 18-1520, -1521 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that the Board erred in finding a reference (Boyd) was prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) to Arctic Cat’s ’188 and ’822 patents. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s unpatentability determination based on Boyd for the ’188 patent, but affirmed the unpatentability determination for the ’822 patent based on a different ground.
The two Arctic Cat patents claim priority to October 29, 2002. Boyd, the asserted reference, was filed April 1, 2002. Arctic Cat established conception before Boyd’s April 2002 filing date. But the Board found that the inventor failed to account for his personal activities reducing the invention to practice for “approximately half of the days” between April 1, 2002 and October 29, 2002. The Board accordingly held the invention had not been diligently reduced to practice, and that Arctic Cat could not antedate Boyd.
The Federal Circuit reversed that determination, finding the Board applied “too rigid a standard,” and held Arctic Cat successfully antedated the Boyd reference. The Court noted that most of the “identified gap in [the inventor’s] personal activity” could be attributed to third-party testing of the invention, and further held third-party testing “does not give rise to an inference of unreasonable delay or abandonment.” The Court held Arctic Cat’s invention was diligently reduced to practice and that Arctic Cat had successfully antedated Boyd.
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.
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2024
April 3-4, 2024
Washington
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
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.