Results for secondary considerations

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Case Number: CLB0465

Date: 12.18.2019

In determining the presumption of nexus for secondary considerations, a patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a “critical” unclaimed feature that materially impacts the product’s functionality.

view Case Detail Download PDF

In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0267

Date: 01.05.2011

Commercial success evidence should be considered so long as what was sold was within the scope of the claims. The patent applicant need not sell every conceivable embodiment of the claims in order to rely upon evidence of commercial success.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Ex Parte Jellá

Case Number: CLB0220

Date: 11.03.2008

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holds that, in order to rely on secondary considerations in support of the non-obviousness of a claim, there must be a clear nexus between the evidence presented and the invention as claimed.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.

Case Number: CLB0196

Date: 07.14.2008

Evidence of secondary considerations must have a sufficient nexus with the scope of the claims. The “control or direction” standard for joint infringement is satisfied only when a person exercises a level of control that would traditionally make a person vicariously liable for another party’s actions.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.

Case Number: CLB0045

Date: 01.29.2004

Absent an express teaching to combine prior art references, a court may find motivation to combine the references in the nature of the problem to be solved. This is particularly true when dealing with simpler mechanical technologies.

view Case Detail Download PDF