Executive 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.
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
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent 8332454, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Amidon, Wong, and Gogic. The PTAB institution decision was strongly favored due to compelling merits and favorable parallel litigation status.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al.vsForas Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.vsShoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found that the petitioner's challenges against claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 were successful. The Board determined that the challenged deodorant formulations were unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11634491) in a PTAB Institution Decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for multiple claims under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
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.