PTAB Finds Secondary Considerations Outweigh Evidence of Obviousness

Feb 1, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

In assessing evidence of obviousness, the PTAB noted that “the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention [were] minimal”—two bottle cap references disclosed every limitation except the harder steel, and a third reference disclosed the harder steel. Furthermore, it found that the third reference suggested using the harder steel in bottle cap applications and that the bottle cap industry generally trended toward increasing material hardness, though this trend had stalled in recent years.

This evidence was not strong enough to resist Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations, particularly regarding commercial success of the bottle cap in Peru. After showing a sufficient nexus between the patent and the product, Patent Owner pointed out that its Peruvian market share had grown from 88.7 percent of the market to 95.5 percent of the market during a period in which it was replacing its old caps with the patented caps. Because the data were taken during a “replacement period,” the data allowed the PTAB to “infer that the increase in market share is because of the merits of the new product.” Thus, the PTAB found the 7 percent increase of market share “persuasive” evidence of non-obviousness. Moreover, because there was no evidence that Peru was not a sufficiently free market, the PTAB rejected Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner needed to show success in other markets, such as the United States.

The PTAB also considered the secondary consideration of industry praise, specifically finding that the industry praised the harder material because artisans thought steels as hard as those claimed “simply would not work” due to technical problems. Patent Owner overcame the problems by adding grooves to the cap, which allowed for thinner and harder steel and signified “an unexpected and welcome development” in the industry. This unexpected success was also sufficient to explain why the industry trend toward harder steels had stalled for years, weakening the obviousness evidence. Furthermore, the PTAB noted that statements in the first two references that cautioned against using harder steel, while they did not rise to “teaching away,” did dampen the motivation to combine those references with the steel disclosed in the third reference.

Thus, the PTAB found that strong secondary evidence of non-obviousness overcame solid, but imperfect, evidence of obviousness. Although it is rare for patent owners to prevail when relying heavily on secondary considerations, this decision appears to provide a strategy for future patent owners in which they select specific markets to demonstrate commercial success and use secondary considerations to mitigate evidence of obviousness.

World Bottling Cap LLP v. Crown Packaging Technology Inc., Case IPR2015-01651 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2017). [Saindon (opinion), White and Tornquist]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.