Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case between GoPro, Inc. and Contour IP Holding LLC, GoPro appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final decisions regarding the patentability of claims from two patents related to action sport video cameras. The primary legal issue centered on whether the GoPro Catalog constituted a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which affects the obviousness determination of the challenged patent claims. The Board initially found that GoPro failed to prove the catalog was sufficiently disseminated to qualify as prior art, despite credible evidence of its distribution at a 2009 trade show. GoPro appealed, arguing that the Board's interpretation of public accessibility was too narrow. The appeals court agreed, emphasizing that trade shows can provide sufficient public access to materials intended for product development and marketing. The court vacated the Board's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings to assess the catalog's status as prior art. This determination is critical as all grounds for GoPro's challenges rely on the catalog. The court's ruling underscores the broad interpretation of public accessibility under patent law, aligning with established precedents regarding printed publications. No costs were assigned, and the case was sent back for further examination of the catalog's role in the patent claims' obviousness.
Legal Issues Addressed
Factual Findings Reviewed for Substantial Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviewed the Board's factual findings regarding the GoPro Catalog's distribution for substantial evidence and found that the Board's conclusion lacked sufficient support in the record.
Reasoning: The legal determination of whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication involves factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence.
Printed Publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether the GoPro Catalog was sufficiently accessible to the public to be considered a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), ultimately disagreeing with the Board's decision.
Reasoning: The primary issue on appeal is the accessibility of the GoPro Catalog under 102(b), with GoPro contending that the Board erred in its findings regarding the sufficiency of Mr. Jones's declarations and supporting evidence.
Role of Trade Shows in Establishing Printed Publicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that trade shows can serve a similar purpose to industry conferences in terms of public accessibility, especially when the event targets individuals interested in the product's development and marketing.
Reasoning: Trade shows serve similar purposes as conferences, targeting those interested in product development and marketing. GoPro's participation in the Tucker Rocky Dealer Show in 2009 involved distributing hundreds of catalogs to over 1,000 attendees without restrictions.
Standard for Public Accessibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the standard for public accessibility, requiring that the information be disseminated to a degree that interested parties, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it. The court found that the GoPro Catalog met this standard.
Reasoning: The standard for public accessibility requires 'reasonable diligence' to locate information by interested parties. Testimony indicated that the show was attended by potential dealers and customers of POV cameras, and the GoPro Catalog was disseminated broadly with the intention of reaching the public.