FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC
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.
Results for secondary considerations
view Case Detail
Download PDF
In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc.
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.
Ex Parte Jellá
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.
Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
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.
Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.
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.