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

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.