What is the Role of the Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness

by Dennis Crouch ZUP, LLC, Petitioner v.  Nash Manufacturing, Inc. is a nice teaching case because the invention is so simple.  Zup’s patent covers a wake-board with a particular handle configuration and a method of riding the board — using the handles to change positions. U.S. Patent No. 8,292,681. In its decision, the Federal Circuit sided with the accused infringer Nash — affirming that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious.  In particular, the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court ruling that Zup had simply combined well-known elements (handles & foot bindings, e.g.) to solve a longstanding watersport goal.  Zup presented evidence of secondary considerations of both long-felt but unresolved need and copying.  Zup explains its position: Here, the defendant Nash had been in the field for over 50 years, obtaining numerous patents on water recreation devices similar to the ZUP Board. Nash had…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply