PTAB Determines that “Weak” Evidence of Secondary Considerations Does Not Overcome Strong Obviousness Showing

Oct 8, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

The PTAB then considered the patent owner’s evidence of secondary considerations of non­obviousness and concluded that it was “weak.” First the PTAB considered the patent owner’s allegation of long felt need. In conducting this analysis, the PTAB applied the patent owner’s own relative definition of “need,” which was simply “to more effectively reduce wear.” The PTAB determined that the patent owner did not provide “credible evidence” that the prior art failed to meet the alleged “need,” as defined by the patent owner. Next the PTAB considered the alleged failure of others, and determined that the patent owner presented insufficient evidence. In particular, the PTAB faulted the patent owner for not submitting evidence that another company attempted to produce equipment that would infringe any of the independent claims, or that another company tried and failed to produce such equipment. The PTAB then considered the patent owner’s allegation that the claimed invention had achieved commercial success, and concluded that the patent owner had failed to establish the necessary nexus. The PTAB characterized the patent owner’s evidence of a nexus—that consumers buy certain products from the exclusive licensee—as demonstrating commercial success, but not a nexus. The PTAB stated that “[i]f all that was necessary to prove a nexus was to show that customers bought more of the identified product than other products, a nexus would exist for every product that exhibits success in the marketplace.” Finally, the PTAB concluded that the patent owner lacked sufficient evidence for its allegation that copying evidenced nonobviousness. According to the PTAB, the only evidence of copying was testimony of the patent owner’s declarant asserting that the petitioner’s product embodies the claims of the patent. The PTAB stated that it “do[es] not determine infringement in inter partes review,” and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show copying.

After weighing the evidence, the PTAB concluded that the patent owner’s “weak” evidence of secondary considerations did not overcome the petitioner’s “strong” evidence of obviousness. The PTAB, therefore, found that all of the challenged claims were unpatentable. The patent­at­issue was also asserted against the petitioner in Western Falcon, Inc. v. Moore Rod & Pipe, LLC, 4:13­cv­02963, in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Moore Rod & Pipe, LLC v. Wagon Trail Ventures, Inc., Case IPR2013­00418 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.