iron grip

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Hertz 12809997 - (D) OGDEN 103 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC LEE, REBECCA Y

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1732 Ex Parte Hucul et al 12632474 - (D) DELMENDO 103 DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP LI, JUN

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Hill et al 11837811 - (D) SMEGAL 103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) OROPEZA, FRANCES P

3769 Ex Parte Whelan et al 11829142 - (D) HILL 102/103 103 41.50 103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP CRANDALL, LYNSEY P

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2873 CRANE CO. Respondent, Requester v. Patent of AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS, INC. Appellant, Patent Owner Ex Parte 6384402 et al 09/261,221 95000605 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 102/103 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP Third Party Requester: DANIEL E. VENGLARIK FETSUGA, ROBERT M original LESTER, EVELYN A

The Patent Owner’s licensing of the claimed subject matter to its competitors is not meaningful evidence of non-obviousness. Our reviewing court instructs us that its “cases specifically require affirmative evidence of nexus where the evidence of commercial success presented is a license, because it is often ‘cheaper to take licenses than to defend infringement lawsuits.’” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2144.05