Licensing Evidence Of Nonobviousness Does Not Require Claim-Specific Nexus

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board's analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

After the board issued final written decisions concluding that claims of the challenged patent were unpatentable as obvious, patentee appealed. Among the issues raised on appeal, patentee contended that the board erred in analyzing nexus for two secondary considerations of nonobviousness: industry praise and licensing.