Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01767/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Horizon Global Americas Inc.
Appellant
Northern Stamping Co.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC.,

Appellant

v.

NORTHERN STAMPING CO.,

Appellee

______________________

2023-1767

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

01411.

______________________

Decided: January 13, 2025

______________________

STEPHANIE M. HATZIKYRIAKOU, Baker & Hostetler LLP, 

Philadelphia, PA, for appellant. Also represented by 

BRENDAN E. CLARK, CHRISTINA J. MOSER, Cleveland, OH. 

 DENNIS J. ABDELNOUR, Honigman LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by DAVID ROULO,

RON SKLAR. 

 ______________________

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2025
2 HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO.

Before LOURIE and HUGHES, Circuit Judges, and GILSTRAP,

Chief District Judge.

1

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Horizon Global Americas Inc. (“Horizon”) appeals from 

a final written decision of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the 

Board”) holding claims 16–20 of U.S. Patent 10,589,585 

(“the ’585 patent”) unpatentable as obvious and denying

Horizon’s contingent motion to amend. N. Stamping Co., 

v. Horizon Glob. Ams. Inc., No. IPR2021-04411, (P.T.A.B. 

Feb. 9, 2023) (“Decision”), J.A. 1–49. For the reasons 

provided below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’585 patent is directed to a hitch mounting system 

that connects a towed vehicle (e.g., a trailer) to the bed of a 

towing vehicle (e.g., a pickup truck). In general, there are 

two main types of in-bed hitch mounting systems: (1) a 

“gooseneck” hitch, where the towing vehicle offers a ball 

and the towed vehicle has a tubular coupler that attaches 

to the ball, and (2) a “fifth wheel” hitch, where the towing 

vehicle offers a receiver plate and the towed vehicle has a 

kingpin (i.e., a large pin) that attaches to the plate. 

While prior systems could accommodate both 

gooseneck and fifth wheel hitches, an adapter was required 

to convert between the two. The ’585 patent proposes a 

structure that can accommodate both types of hitches

without an adapter. Representative claim 16 recites:

A hitch mounting system comprising: 

1 Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, Chief District Judge, 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas, sitting by designation.

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2025
HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO. 3

a pair of tubular members each having a crosssectional shape a substantial portion of which is 

defined by an enclosed peripheral wall with a 

generally hollow section;

a mid rail attached to each of and between said pair 

of tubular members spacing said pair of tubular 

members apart, said mid rail having a socket 

capable of accepting a gooseneck hitch ball; and

a pair of receiving members attached with each of 

said pair of tubular members, said receiving 

members configured to engage a leg of a fifth wheel 

hitch.

Id. at col. 8, ll. 8–20. Claims 17–20 are dependent 

claims that have not been argued separately, so all 

claims stand or fall with the arguments and decision 

interpreting claim 16. 

Northern Stamping Co. (“Northern Stamping”) 

petitioned for inter parties review, arguing that claims 16–

20 of the ’585 patent would have been obvious over U.S. 

Patents 6,969,090 (“Works”), 7,121,153 (“Lindenman”), and 

6,467,791 (“Fandrich”). Works discloses a gooseneck hitch 

system and Lindenman discloses a fifth wheel hitch 

system. Decision, J.A. 10–12. Fandrich discloses a fifth 

wheel hitch system with tubular cross members and was 

asserted as a “backup” to Works’ disclosure of tubular cross 

members. Id. at 24. In response, Horizon argued that the 

asserted references did not render claim 16 obvious, and

alternatively filed a contingent motion to amend, proposing

substitute claims 21 and 22 which require, in relevant part,

a “mid rail . . . permanently attached to . . . [a] pair of 

tubular [cross] members as a one piece assembly.” Id. at 

39. In response to the motion to amend, Northern 

Stamping argued that the substitute claims were obvious 

over U.S. Patent 7,828,317 (“Withers”) and Fandrich. 

Withers is directed to a hitch system capable of 

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2025
4 HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO.

accommodating gooseneck and fifth wheel hitches without 

an adapter. Id. at 20. 

The Board determined that claims 16–20 had been 

shown to be unpatentable. The Board denied Horizon’s 

contingent motion to amend, determining that substitute 

claims 21 and 22 were also shown to be unpatentable. 

Horizon timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

facts. Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., 82 F.4th 1371, 1380 

(Fed. Cir. 2023). We review the Board’s legal conclusion of 

obviousness de novo and its findings of fact for substantial 

evidence. HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 

877 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

I

The Board found that there was a motivation to 

combine Works’ gooseneck hitch system and Lindenman’s 

fifth wheel hitch system, rendering claim 16 obvious. The 

Board also rejected Horizon’s argument relying on

secondary considerations of non-obviousness. On appeal, 

Horizon argues that the Board’s motivation-to-combine 

finding was infected by legal errors and not supported by 

substantial evidence and that the Board’s secondary 

considerations finding was also not supported by 

substantial evidence. We address each in turn.

A

Horizon first asserts that the Board’s motivation-tocombine analysis was legally flawed because the Board 

“inappropriately criticized” Horizon’s evidence. Horizon 

Br. 30. Therefore, according to Horizon, the Board did not 

consider the references from the perspective of a person of 

ordinary skill in the art, but rather “substituted its own 

reading of the reference[s].” Id. at 29. We disagree. It is 

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2025
HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO. 5

the Board’s fundamental role to weigh—i.e., criticize—the 

evidence and resolve factual disputes. See Roku, Inc. v. 

Universal Elecs., Inc., 63 F.4th 1319, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2023). 

Horizon’s second legal challenge is that the Board’s 

analysis improperly focused on the “general underlying 

idea” of the ’585 patent—“a hitch that could accommodate 

both gooseneck and fifth wheel.” Horizon Br. 39. We again 

disagree. The Board explained why a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the 

asserted references, which Horizon does not dispute

disclose each of the challenged limitations, to arrive at the 

structure recited in claim 16. Decision, J.A. 18–23. 

The last legal challenge Horizon brings is that the 

Board reduced Northern Stamping’s burden of proof for 

obviousness to a reasonable likelihood of success when the 

correct standard was a preponderance of the evidence. We 

are unpersuaded. The Board analyzed the evidence before 

it, stated the correct standard, and applied it, concluding 

that “[Northern Stamping] has shown by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 16 would 

have been obvious.” Id. at 35. 

B

Horizon contends that the Board’s motivation-tocombine finding was not supported by substantial evidence 

because although Works does not claim a fifth-wheel hitch 

system, only a gooseneck hitch system, it can already 

accommodate a fifth wheel hitch system by using an 

adapter, and therefore the combination of Works and 

Lindenman to meet the limitations of the ’585 patent would 

have been redundant. The Board already rejected this 

argument, explaining that while Works discloses the 

ability to accommodate a “fifth wheel,” Works is not 

referencing a fifth wheel hitch system, but rather a hitch 

system in general. Decision, J.A. 14. That finding is 

consistent with what Works discloses. Works at col. 1, ll. 

26–41 (“to allow the trailing vehicle to be connected to a 

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2025
6 HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO.

fifth wheel type hitch, a ‘gooseneck’ type extension is 

utilized”) (emphasis added).

Furthermore, the Board found that even if Works could 

accommodate a fifth wheel hitch, a person of ordinary skill

in the art would have been motivated to combine Works

and Lindenman to eliminate the need for an adapter. 

Decision, J.A. 14–15. That finding was supported by 

substantial evidence because, as explained by the ’585 

patent itself, using an adapter to “convert a towing vehicle 

to from accommodating a fifth wheel hitch to a gooseneck 

hitch or vice versa is time and labor intensive and 

inefficient.” ’585 patent col. 1, ll. 32–34. 

C

As for Horizon’s secondary considerations argument,

Horizon relied on the commercial success of its hitch 

system that had purportedly been incorporated into Ford

(the car company) trucks. But, because Horizon did not 

demonstrate that Ford’s hitch system had any connection 

to the ’585 patent, the Board found that Horizon had not 

established nexus. Decision, J.A. 31–32. That finding was 

reasonable. The only evidence Horizon relied on to 

demonstrate that the hitch system sold by Ford embodied 

the ’585 patent were drawings depicting how the ’585 

patent’s hitch system could potentially be incorporated into 

Ford’s trucks; there was no evidence demonstrating that 

Ford trucks actually did incorporate the ’585 patent. Id.

II

The Board last found that a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would have been motivated to combine Fandrich 

and Withers, rendering proposed substitute claims 21 and 

22 obvious, and therefore denied Horizon’s motion to 

amend. 

As noted, substitute claims 21 and 22 added a

limitation which requires a “mid rail . . . permanently 

attached to . . . [the] pair of tubular [cross] members as a 

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2025
HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS INC. v. NORTHERN STAMPING CO. 7

one piece assembly.” Horizon’s sole challenge as to 

proposed claims 21 and 22 is that substantial evidence does 

not support the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would have been motivated to combine 

Wither’s cross members with Fandrich’s tubular shape. 

Once again, we disagree. Northern Stamping’s expert 

testified that Fandrich’s tubular shape and its advantages 

in this context were well known such that its incorporation

with Withers’ cross members would have been obvious to 

try. J.A. 4493–94. The Board’s finding was accordingly 

supported by substantial evidence. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Horizon’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-1767 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 01/13/2025