Licensing Evidence of Nonobviousness Does Not Require Claim-Specific Nexus

August 5, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

After the board issued final written decisions concluding that claims of the challenged patent were unpatentable as obvious, patentee appealed. Among the issues raised on appeal, patentee contended that the board erred in analyzing nexus for two secondary considerations of nonobviousness: industry praise and licensing.

Regarding industry praise, the court upheld the board’s finding that the patentee failed to establish a nexus between the challenged claims and a joint press release as well as an agreement. Although the press release directly named the challenged patent and the agreement concerned products using the patent, the board found that the praise was directed to the patent generally—not to the specific challenged claims.

The court, however, determined that the board’s treatment of licensing evidence was in error. The board had found no nexus between the challenged claims and two licenses entered during litigation settlements. According to the board, the patentee failed to establish that the licenses resulted directly from the unique characteristics of the claimed subject matter of the patent. Moreover, the board noted that portions of the licenses were redacted and therefore it could not discern the precise terms.

The court called this “too strict a requirement” and stated that the board applied a higher nexus standard than is required for licensing evidence. Unlike product-based evidence—which may incorporate many features unrelated to the claimed invention—licenses are by their nature directly tied to the patented technology and reflect its market value. The court emphasized that a license to the challenged patent does not require a nexus with respect to the specific claims at issue, nor must the challenged patent be the only patent licensed.

Here, the court noted that the licenses at issue specifically identified the challenged patent by number and that the patent was clearly a subject of these agreements. Moreover, the licenses were entered into near the end of litigation involving the same claims and prior art as here, and the payments far exceeded the anticipated litigation cost. The court directed that, on remand, the board should evaluate the nexus issue regarding these licenses and then weigh that evidence against the prima facie case of obviousness.

Relatedly, the board did not evaluate the petitioners’ arguments regarding licenses to the challenged patent with other companies for much less than the anticipated litigation costs. The court stated that the board should also consider nexus, and the probative value of those licenses weighed against the licenses on which the patentee relied for its commercial success argument.

Practice Tip:

When faced with an obviousness challenge, a patentee should consider whether any licenses to the challenged patent can be used as objective indicia of non-obviousness. Because of the less exacting nexus standard for license evidence, the patentee need not establish that the license resulted directly from the unique aspects of the challenged claims. Moreover, the patentee should consider relying on a license even when it includes other patents in addition to the challenged patent.

Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 2023-1674, 2025 WL 1679967 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

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.