Short Summary
GOMACO Corporation successfully challenged seven claims of the '723 patent in a PGR proceeding, arguing they lack written description support and are obvious. The Board instituted review on all grounds, finding the patent subject to AIA rules despite its age.
Detailed Summary
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims (1-7) of U.S. Patent No. 11,772,723 in a Post-Grant Review (PGR). The Petitioner asserted grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (112), citing prior art and specification deficiencies related to angular position transducers on paving machines. Although the Patent Owner initially argued the patent was pre-AIA, the Board determined that priority claims made by the owner subjected the '723 patent to AIA rules, making it eligible for review. The Board ultimately agreed with the Petitioner's written description arguments and instituted review on all grounds challenged.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation vs Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hyundai Motor America, Inc.vsGerm Dome Industries LLC
Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.
Padagis US LLC et al.vsNeurelis, Inc.
Padagis seeks inter partes review of Neurelis’s 11,793,786 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing that all 27 claims are obvious over prior art and that the patent owner is estopped from contesting issues already decided in a prior IPR.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.