直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

Victories for FOX Factory at Federal Circuit and the PTAB on bike chainring IPRs

FOX Factory, Inc.

SRAM, LLC

Finnegan represented FOX Factory, Inc., a manufacturer of performance-defining products for bicycles and powered vehicles, in an appeal of adverse inter partes review (IPR) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving a patent directed to bike chainring technology. The PTAB had held that the patent owner was entitled to a presumption that any secondary considerations of non-obviousness (such as commercial success, praise, etc.) tied to the patented product were attributable to the patented invention. At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Finnegan team argued that the PTAB’s decisions were contrary to Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Federal Circuit agreed with Finnegan that the PTAB had erred and that, under the prevailing case law, the patent owner was not entitled to any presumption that the patented invention was responsible for the alleged secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB ruled in favor of client FOX Factory, finding all of SRAM’s claims unpatentable.

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 18-2024, -2025, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Wallach, Hughes

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, IPR2017-00118, -00472, PTAB, Judges Kim, Ippolito, Cherry

Tags

standing, Precedential

Related Professionals

Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email
Joshua L. Goldberg
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 202 408 6092
Email
Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4216
Email

Related Practices

Appeals from the PTAB

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Experiences

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Fox Factory, Inc.

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Fox Factory, Inc.

Finnegan revives key Jublia® patent at the Federal Circuit

Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care

Federal Circuit upholds enhanced damages award to Finnegan client WCM Industries

WCM Industries, Inc.

Federal Circuit upholds $140 million judgment for Sprint on VoIP patents

Sprint Communications Company LP

Vacating a $110 million judgment against Finnegan client TCL Communication

TCL Communication Technology

Federal Circuit confirms last IV patent at issue in E.D. Tex. Trial invalid

FedEx Corp.

Federal Circuit affirms claim construction and summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Finnegan client Pergo

Pergo LLC

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLC

The Travelers Indemnity Company

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