Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB in Black & Decker Decision

May 25, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Beginning in 2013, Positec USA Inc. requested inter partes review of the ’417 patent in response to Black &Decker alleging that Positec infringed the ’417 patent. In its final written decision, PTAB found claims 16 and 17 of the ’417 patent obvious over U.S. Patent No. 4,498,237. PTAB found that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” how to arrive at the invention disclosed in claims 16 and 17 in light of the ’237 patent.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed PTAB’s invalidity determination. The Federal Circuit rejected PTAB’s explanation of why a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” how to arrive at the disclosed invention. Prior precedent “requires that [PTAB] explain a rationale why a person of ordinary skill” would have modified the prior art to arrive at the present invention. Since PTAB’s explanation was not enough to meet this standard, the Federal Circuit reversed its decision on the invalidity of claims 16 and 17.

The Federal Circuit upheld PTAB’s determination of validity for claims 7 and 10 of the ’417 patent.

Black & Decker, Inc., v. Positec USA, Inc., No. 15-1646 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.