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
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
The USPTO denied Rode Microphones' request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,276,207. The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsVB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of VB Assets' ’699 patent covering conversational AI. The challenger relies on five pre‑2022 publications to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §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.