ARTICLE
17 August 2018

They Could Have Found It: Federal Circuit Reverses Board On Public Accessibility

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 17-1894, 17-1936 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board's determination that a product catalog ...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, No. 17-1894, 17-1936 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board's determination that a product catalog for digital cameras was not publicly available when the catalog had been distributed at an annual, dealer-only trade show for action sports vehicles.

In an IPR, non-patent literature prior art must qualify as a printed publication, meaning it must be publicly accessible. Prior art is publicly accessible if persons ordinarily skilled and interested in the art could have located it exercising reasonable diligence. In this case, the Board instituted GoPro's petitions challenging Contour's patents directed to digital point-of-view cameras for action sports. The instituted obviousness grounds relied on a GoPro catalog, copies of which were distributed at a dealer-only trade show for sports vehicles attended by 150 vendors and 1,000 patrons. Contour argued that the catalog was not publicly accessible and therefore not a printed publication because the trade show was not announced to the public, open to the public, or camera-specific. The Board agreed with Contour, finding that GoPro failed to demonstrate publicly accessibility of the catalog and thus failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious.

On appeal, the Court held that the Board applied the public-accessibility doctrine too narrowly. The Court reasoned because the cameras were intended for use in rugged, extreme environments, and because they were advertised as having such utility with off-road vehicles, persons of skill interested in point-of-view action cameras would have attended the trade show expecting to find action cameras and accompanying literature. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More