A Simple Concept Within an Inventor’s Knowledge Does Not Make It Analogous Art

Each week, we succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. We provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. Our Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. We welcome any feedback you may provide.

– Joe Robinson, Bob Schaffer and Tinh Nguyen

 

troutman-sanders-long

 

Federal Circuit Review — Issue No. 62-01.
A Simple Concept Within an Inventor’s Knowledge Does Not Make It Analogous Art

Circuit Check Inc., v. QXQ Inc., No. 2015-1155, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13620 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 28, 2015) (Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore, J.) (Opinion for the court, Moore, J.).  Click Here for a copy of the opinion.

Circuit Check sued QXQ for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,592,796; 7,695,766; and 7,749,566. These patents claim systems and methods related to marking interface plates used for circuit board testers. QXQ stipulated to infringement and the parties agreed that three references describing plate marking techniques were prior art to the patents (collectively, the “stipulated prior art”). QXQ conceded that the stipulated prior art is missing a feature of the patent claims. This prior art “does not disclose an interface plate comprising ‘a second removable indicia overlying said first predetermined indicia…wherein said second indicia is removed from areas of said plate adjacent each of said predetermined holes’.”

QXQ presented three additional references describing marking techniques for rock carvings, for engraved signatures, and for so-called Prussian Blue machining (the “disputed prior art).” QXQ argued that the disputed prior art “disclosed[d] the limitation not present in the stipulated prior art and constitute[d] analogous prior art.” The jury found for Circuit Check and held the patents valid and infringed. QXQ moved for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were invalid as obvious. The district court granted the motion and Circuit Check appealed.

The issue was whether the disputed prior art is sufficiently “analogous” to the art of marking interface plates for it to be applied in a proper obviousness analysis. “Prior art is analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor or if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to solve.” Since the disputed prior art was not in “the field of circuit board testers and test figures,” it was analogous only “if it [was] reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by the inventor.” According to the Court, the question here was whether an inventor would look to this particular art to solve the particular problem at hand.” The Court held that even though an inventor may be aware of rock carving, engraved signage, or Prussian Blue methods, this does not mean that he would look to these methods when trying to improve markings for circuit board testers. The Court also found that the jury’s determination of validity, which tacitly concluded the disputed prior art was non-analogous, was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Troutman-Sanders-SquareWith respect to the stipulated prior art, the Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that “the differences between the stipulated prior art and the claims were significant.” Substantial evidence also supported the jury’s finding that “objective considerations existed to support nonobviousness.” The district court therefore erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded.

The Author

Robert Schaffer & Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer & Joseph Robinson  

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close