Short Summary
GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.
Detailed Summary
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner asserts that claims 1 through 8 are rendered unpatentable by combining prior art references CIII and Rio, with additional combinations involving Smolders for specific claims. GOMACO argues that the combination would have been predictable to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) seeking to eliminate manual adjustments during slipform paver operations. Furthermore, Petitioner raises issues regarding discretionary denial under § 325(d), stating the examiner failed to consider these relevant references during prosecution.
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
Kubota North America Corporation et al.vsVermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent, proving that the Eagle prior art anticipates and renders obvious all asserted claims. The PTAB declared every challenged claim unpatentable.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
Kahoot! filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB institution decision, arguing the filing is timely and requesting correction of the document type and fee payment assistance.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
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.