Opinion ID: 457170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the patent count

Text: 7 The district court dealt with the Genmark motion for summary judgment on the patent infringement count of the original complaint of Cable Electric in a Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated February 29, 1984 (the patent opinion) 5 . There it stated, [T]he Court finds that, although defendant cannot establish that its device does not infringe plaintiff's patent, defendant does meet its burden of proof in establishing the obviousness of plaintiff's claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 without raising a genuine dispute of material fact. The Genmark motion was accordingly granted, and the Schwartz patent invalidated. 8 Cable Electric attacks that judgment scattershot fashion with a laundry list of objections which fall into the two general areas of inquiry suggested by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 6 namely, (1) the existence of genuine issues of material fact and (2) the entitlement of the movant to judgment as a matter of law. In the former category, it is asserted that the obviousness standard used by the district court evidences a level of uncertainty which implies the existence of genuine issues of material fact, and that affidavits or deposition testimony submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion raise contested issues of material fact with regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between that art and the claims at issue, the commercial success of the product embodying those claims, and the copying of that product by Genmark as demonstrating nonobviousness. It is asserted that the evidence on these issues was not viewed in a light most favorable to Cable, the opponent of summary judgment. 9 Regarding the law employed, Cable contends that the district court erred in that it shifted the burden of persuasion on invalidity, failed to determine that the art relied on to invalidate the Schwartz patent was more pertinent than that considered during prosecution, did not specifically indicate the combination of teachings that would yield the claimed invention, gave inadequate consideration to commercial success and copying as secondary indicia of nonobviousness, and applied an incorrect obviousness standard, which included, among other alleged deficiencies, a failure to consider the claimed invention as a whole. 10 We find these assertions individually and collectively to be without merit. The patent opinion of the district court is well reasoned and, in light of the record upon which it is based, adequate, accurate, and amply justified. The following discussion substantiates our conclusion.
11 Some comments on the use and appellate review of summary judgment are required to provide a frame of reference for a discussion of the record. 12 A number of objections by Cable are essentially complaints that the district court did not adequately amplify its reasoning and the underlying factual inferences on which it relied in granting summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), however, makes it clear that the circumstances in which a grant of summary judgment is proper are circumstances in which a district court need not function as an arbiter among differing versions of every factual reality for which evidentiary support has been presented. Instead, the circumstances appropriate to summary judgment are those in which a district court is able to conclude that, with regard to any factual issues material to granting judgment as a matter of law, no genuine dispute exists. Thus, it manifests incorrect expectations to fault a district court in granting summary judgment for a failure to find particular facts. To engage in fact finding would be not only inappropriate, but would per se imply the impropriety of the grant. See Lemelson v. TRW, Inc., 760 F.2d 1254, 1260-61, 225 USPQ 697, 700-01 (Fed.Cir.1985). 13 Additionally, although Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) provides that a court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, the rule contains the pertinent qualification that [f]indings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 or 56. Accord Helena Rubinstein, Inc. v. Bau, 433 F.2d 1021, 1024, 167 USPQ 711, 713 (9th Cir.1970); Fromberg, Inc. v. Gross Manufacturing Co., 328 F.2d 803, 806, 140 USPQ 641, 643 (9th Cir.1964). An exception, which we do not consider to be applicable here, can be found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 in the case of grants of partial summary judgment. 7 Assuredly, to know the reasoning a district court used in deciding to grant summary judgment facilitates the task of a reviewing court, and there does exist a risk in complicated cases of an unnecessary reversal if the logic that resulted in a grant of summary judgment cannot be discerned. See Petersen Manufacturing Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 1546, 222 USPQ 562, 566 (Fed.Cir.1984). Nevertheless, in light of the record before us and the patent opinion of the district court, the issues in this case present no such degree of complexity as would preclude affirmance, due to any failure of the district court to make the basis of its holding clear. 14 Thus, the complaint of Cable as to the insufficiency of the factual findings of the District Court on the scope and content of the prior art [or] ... the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue is unpersuasive for at least three reasons. First, the presence of findings would signal the possible existence of disputed issues of material fact, none of which we discern to exist. Second, there is no legal requirement that the rationale behind a nonpartial grant of summary judgment, including a recitation of undisputed factual inferences and applications of legal principles, be made explicit. The only requirement in this regard is pragmatic, with an eye toward judicial economy and communication with the litigants. Finally, in this instance, the premise underlying the argument is simply incorrect. Contrary to the hyperbole of Cable, the patent opinion of the district court evidences that it considered and, in view of the straightforward nature of this case, adequately discussed the issues involved. 15 On this basis, we also dispose of the charge by Cable that the district court failed to make a factual determination as to whether any of these [prior art patent] references were or were not more pertinent than the art considered by the Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit. Cable cites Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed.Cir.1984), as condemning the omission of such a determination. Nevertheless, in Jones the appeal was from a judgment rendered after a 2-day trial, rather than one from summary judgment, and the failure of the lower court opinion to contain a factual determination as to pertinency was but one of many, more major flaws in the obviousness analysis cited by this court in reversing a conclusion of invalidity. The analysis faulted in Jones included, for example, a denial of the statutory presumption of validity and an impermissible burden-shifting, id., which, as will be discussed below, did not occur here. Cf. King Instruments Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 857, 226 USPQ 402, 404 (Fed.Cir.1985) (referring to the failings in the Jones analysis as a parade of horrors). A determination on pertinency may in some cases afford insight into the reasoning of the factfinder, but it is not strictly a requirement under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), for a proper obviousness analysis. 16 Review of the grant of summary judgment at issue then first requires review of the evidence relevant to the factual inquiries of Graham, including evidence relevant to the secondary considerations, in order to determine whether any genuine issue exists as to facts material to reaching a conclusion on obviousness. Cooper v. Ford Motor Co., 748 F.2d 677, 679, 223 USPQ 1286, 1287-88 (Fed.Cir.1984). If not, and if viewing that evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and drawing in favor thereof all inferences as are reasonable, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the grant of summary judgment will be affirmed. Id. at 679, 223 USPQ at 1288.
17 In such analysis as Cable is willing to acknowledge was included by the district court in its patent opinion, several errors are alleged. Nevertheless, as obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 (1982) is a conclusion of law subject to our full and independent review, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1344, 220 USPQ 777, 782 (Fed.Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 116, 83 L.Ed.2d 60, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), reversal in this instance would require more than a mere demonstration of error in analysis. Even assuming that such errors were committed, Cable must demonstrate that if the errors were corrected, the application of the law to the facts present would produce a different result. Union Carbide Corp. v. American Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573, 220 USPQ 584, 589 (Fed.Cir.1984). In short, such errors as may be demonstrated must have further been harmful. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2111. 8 Accord Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 714 F.2d 1573, 1580, 219 USPQ 8, 12 (Fed.Cir.1983).
18 The burdens of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact and the entitlement to judgment as a matter of law is upon the summary judgment movant, Genmark. Cooper, 748 F.2d at 679, 223 USPQ at 1288. In this instance, as Genmark is also the party asserting the invalidity of a United States patent, the burden of demonstrating an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law includes the burden of overcoming the presumption of patent validity found in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 282. 9 Cable claims that, despite explicit mention by the district court, the presumption of validity was not observed. The presumption of section 282 is a procedural device which places on a party asserting invalidity the initial burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case on that issue. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 885, 221 USPQ 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1984). While the burden of persuasion on the issue of invalidity also rests throughout the litigation with the party asserting invalidity, id., if evidence is presented establishing a prima facie case of invalidity, the opponent of invalidity must come forward with evidence to counter the prima facie challenge to the presumption of section 282. This requirement is in no way contrary to the procedural role of the presumption of validity. Nor does it in substance shift the burden of persuasion on the issue. In the end, the question is whether all the evidence establishes that the validity challenger so carried his burden as to have persuaded the decisionmaker that the patent can no longer be accepted as valid. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 at 1534, 218 USPQ at 876 (Fed.Cir.1983). 19 Likewise, on a motion for summary judgment, the burden is upon the movant in support thereof to demonstrate an absence of genuine issues of material fact and then the entitlement to judgment at law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 10 If a showing is made that would entitle the movant to judgment unless contradicted, then Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) 11 states that the nonmovant has the burden to show that such a contradiction is possible; it cannot rest upon its allegations and pleadings. First National Bank v. First Bank Stock Co., 306 F.2d 937, 943 (9th Cir.1962). Indeed, this shift of burden and the duty to come forward with possible contradiction of proof is the essence of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. DeLong Corp. v. Raymond International, Inc., 622 F.2d 1135, 1144, 206 USPQ 97, 104 (3d Cir.1980) (cited and quoted in part in D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 1150, 219 USPQ 13, 17-18 (Fed.Cir.1983)). Here, once Genmark had established its prima facie case for summary judgment, which would have included a prima facie case for overcoming the presumption of validity, it fell upon Cable to submit evidence setting forth specific facts raising a genuine issue for trial. First National Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592, 20 L.Ed.2d 569, reh'g denied, 393 U.S. 901, 89 S.Ct. 63, 21 L.Ed.2d 188 (1968). This Cable clearly understood when it submitted, in opposition to the summary judgment motion of Genmark, deposition testimony and various declarations which it contended raised genuine issues of material fact relative to an obviousness analysis under Graham. In commenting on the effectiveness of one of these declarations in presenting evidence of factual issues requiring trial, the district court said [p]laintiff [Cable] seeks to avoid summary judgment by introducing the declaration of an expert that, it claims, raises genuine issues of material fact. 582 F.Supp. at 97, 223 USPQ at 291. It is now contended that the avoid summary judgment phrase of this statement demonstrates that the district court improperly shifted to Cable, the patentee, the burden of persuasion on the issue of invalidity. We disagree. 20 For reasons to be discussed below, and with which we concur, the district court deemed the affidavits submitted by Cable to have been inadequate to show any genuinely contested issues of material fact. Thus, Cable failed in the duty imposed upon it by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) to rebut the prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that there is a genuine [factual] issue for trial. Contrary to the argument of Cable, this duty is distinct from that of requiring that the evidence 'persuade' the court of patentability, which was condemned in Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d at 1528, 220 USPQ at 1025. The avoidance of summary judgment as to patent invalidity does not represent a shift of the burden of going forward to establish a case for invalidity or the burden of persuasion on the issue of invalidity. Under section 282 these burdens were imposed on Genmark, and we have not been given the impression that the district court shifted them to Cable. The stray and inconsequential quotations proffered in this regard from the summary judgment hearing add nothing to the meritless claim that the presumption of validity was not observed.
21 The district court opinion invalidating the Schwartz patent mentions a number of prior art patent references. Among these, U.S. Patent No. 3,968,355 to Smallegan (the Smallegan patent) discloses a night light controlled by a photosensitive switch and operated from an electric wall receptacle. It is undisputed that this reference alone teaches all of the limitations in the claims of the Schwartz patent, save those pertaining to what is termed in claim 1 thereof 12 a shade of predetermined shape and appearance. In this regard, however, the Smallegan patent does contain a specific suggestion for providing some sort of shade about the bulb of the device to reduce the effect of the bulb on the photosensitive control, and other references discussed below exhibit the shade details recited in the patent in suit. 22 For example, U.S. Patent No. 3,694,607 to Fontana and U.S. Patent No. Des. 205,371 to Mellyn, from which Fig. 3 is included here, disclose bottom-mounted night light shades which frictionally engage and disengage in a snap-on manner ... said [lamp] housing in a position ... facilitating repeated replacement of said bulb, as is recited in claim 1 of the Schwartz patent. 23 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 24 Additionally, U.S. Patents Nos. Des. 207,500 and Des. 208,939, both also to Mellyn, show such shades having front and side wall portions. Figs. 1 and 2 of the latter patent are included below and depict a shade fully described by the following limitation from claim 1 of the patent in suit: 25 [S]aid front wall portion [has] a generally planar surface extending between generally rectangular edges including longer vertically extending edges and relatively shorter horizontally extending edges, said side wall portions extending in a diverging manner generally symmetrically at a predetermined angle greater than 90 degrees away from said front wall portion toward a rearward plane of said [lamp] housing.... 26 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 27 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 28 All of these references are from the electric night light art, the same as that of the patent in suit and of the Smallegan patent. Based on the explicit suggestions for a shade contained in the latter, teachings of these references could have been combined to produce a device meeting all the limitations of claim 1 of Schwartz except for having a generally polygonal-shaped pattern extending over substantially the entire front wall portion of the shade. 29 This feature, however, can be found in the following patents among those mentioned by the district court as examples of such a teaching: 30 U.S. Patent No. Patentee --------------- -------- Des. 127,892 Ohm 3,549,879 Meyer 3,265,887 Wince 2,978,575 Cohen 31 None of these deal with shades for night lights specifically, but rather with shades for overhead lighting fixtures. Cable argues that these would use florescent light bulbs in contrast to the incandescent-type employed with the night light of the Schwartz patent. The declaration of 33-year Cable employee, Harry Hodgetts, head of the company's design engineering department (the Hodgetts declaration), attempts to puff up the difference between the two types of light bulbs as presenting entirely different light diffusing problems, but fails absolutely to elaborate the nature of the purported differences. Such unsupported conclusional statements are not helpful in affidavits used to avoid summary judgment. 32 The references demonstrate that polygonal patterning on light shades was old in the lighting art, even if not in the narrow field of night lights. Each reference addresses a problem confronted by the Schwartz patent, namely, the diffusion of light from an electric bulb, be it incandescent or florescent, through a translucent shade. In evaluating obviousness, the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art is presumed to have the ability to select and utilize knowledge from other arts reasonably pertinent to [the] particular problem to which the claimed invention is directed. In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168, 1171-72, 170 USPQ 285, 287-88, 58 C.C.P.A. 1382, 1385-88 (1971); see, e.g., Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1460, 221 USPQ 481, 487 (Fed.Cir.1984). Assuming arguendo that these four references are not strictly within the field of art represented by Schwartz, they are easily within a field analogous thereto, and their teachings are properly combinable with the earlier references discussed above. See Union Carbide Corp. v. American Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1572, 220 USPQ 584, 588 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 220 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979)). 33 Cable faults the district court for failing to make determinations as to how teachings of the references could be combined to produce the patented invention. Nevertheless, the straight-forward quality of the invention and art involved make the required combination quite apparent. The district court pointed out features in each reference; presumably it was these that were to be joined. As to most teachings, several references were cited without delineating a single one of the group for combination with references showing other features. The district court did so apparently to demonstrate the widespread knowledge in the lighting art of each feature involved. As no serious ambiguity resulted, we observe no error in this. 34 Further, the suggestion to modify the art to produce the claimed invention need not be expressly stated in one or all of the references used to show obviousness. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein); Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc., 726 F.2d 734, 739, 220 USPQ 845, 848-49 (Fed.Cir.1984). The district court in invalidating the Schwartz patent relied exclusively and correctly on knowledge clearly present in the prior art. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed.Cir.1983). In this respect it is to be sustained.
35 Cable claims that the Hodgetts declaration, if viewed in a light most favorable to Cable, raises genuine issues of material fact in relation to the inquiries required by Graham dealing with scope and content of the prior art and the differences between that art and the claims at issue. With respect to the references discussed above, the declaration adds little, if anything, not already in the record. While attempting to highlight differences between the teachings of the references and the claimed invention, it largely summarizes their contents and is thus duplicative in a manner which fails to demonstrate any genuine dispute as to issues of material fact and is not helpful in resolving patentability problems. What we do find helpful is facts of which we would not otherwise be aware. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1576, 224 USPQ 617, 624 (Fed.Cir.1985). 36 The declaration states the opinion that the patented invention of the Schwartz patent ... [would] not [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the night light art from the teachings of the references discussed. Obviousness, however, is a question of law. 37 Opinion testimony by experts concluding that an invention would or would not have been obvious may influence the court's decision, but conflicting opinions on a legal issue vel non raise no issue of contested fact. Nor is the court's conclusion on obviousness an adverse inference of fact. 38 Petersen Manufacturing Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 1548, 222 USPQ 562, 567 (Fed.Cir.1984) (citations omitted). 39 We reject the contention that the Hodgetts declaration raised contested issues of fact. At most, the declaration offered an interpretation of undisputed factual evidence, but did not set forth specific conflicting facts that showed a genuine issue requiring trial.
40 In making a determination on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. at 693, 15 L.Ed.2d at 556, 148 USPQ at 467, sets forth, as providing background, several basic factual inquiries, including the content of the prior art, the difference between that art and the claimed subject matter, and the level of ordinary skill in the subject art. In addition, it is suggested that certain secondary considerations which give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the [patented] subject matter may have relevancy as indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness. Id. at 17-18, 86 S.Ct. at 693-694, 15 L.Ed.2d at 556-557, 148 USPQ at 467. The opinions of this court have suggested that evidence on these secondary considerations is to be taken into account always, not just when the decisionmaker remains in doubt after reviewing the art. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed.Cir.1983). See Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575, 222 USPQ 744, 746 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2138, 85 L.Ed.2d 496 (1985); Radio Steel & Manufacturing Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 731 F.2d 840, 846, 221 USPQ 657, 662 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 119, 83 L.Ed.2d 62 (1984); Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d at 1530, 220 USPQ at 1027; Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1549, 220 USPQ 193, 197 (Fed.Cir.1983). 41 Nevertheless, a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations is required in order for the evidence to be given substantial significance in an obviousness decision. Simmons Fastener, 739 F.2d at 1575, 222 USPQ at 746, Stratoflex, 713 F.2d at 1539, 218 USPQ at 879. Thus, the weight to be accorded evidence on secondary considerations is to be carefully appraised in relation to the facts of the actual case in which it is offered. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908, 225 USPQ 20, 26 (Fed.Cir.1985); In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1574-77, 224 USPQ 617, 623-25 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Address by D. Chisum, AIPLA Annual Meeting (October 26, 1984), reprinted in 1984 AIPLA Bull. 618, 620 (secondary not because they are secondary in importance [but] ... because they are relevant through a process of inference to the ultimate technical issue of nonobviousness [and being] ... relevant through a chain of inference, their force may be weakened for a variety of reasons). 42 Cable claims that a trial is required due to the existence of contested issues of material fact regarding (1) the commercial success of the Cable device embodying the claims of the Schwartz patent and (2) the copying of that device by Genmark. 43
44 Cable relies on the declaration of its chief financial officer, George Lema, executed October 31, 1982 (the Lema declaration). Relevant to this issue, it states only the following: 45 Plaintiff [Cable] began manufacturing its night light in 1978. Since the introduction of that night light, over 5 million units have been sold. Profits of not less than fifty ($.50) cents per unit have been realized by plaintiff. Plaintiff's night light has been distributed nationwide in major department store chains and local hardware outlets. 46 Genmark has not disputed this statement, so it is to be accepted for what it shows. Union Carbide, 724 F.2d at 1575, 220 USPQ at 591. 47 Nevertheless, what it shows in relation to commercial success is fairly minimal. Without further economic evidence, for example, it would be improper to infer that the reported sales represent a substantial share of any definable market or whether the profitability per unit is anything out of the ordinary in the industry involved. This type of information might bolster the existence in fact of any commercial success which may be demonstrated by the Lema declaration, but even assuming commercial success were clearly shown, Cable would face an additional hurdle before the Lema declaration could prove pertinent to nonobviousness. 48 As the district court correctly pointed out in declining to give weight to the Lema declaration on the issue of commercial success as an indicator of nonobviousness, this court in Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed.Cir.1983), has unequivocally stated that for commercial success of a product embodying a claimed invention to have true relevance to the issue of nonobviousness, that success must be shown to have in some way been due to the nature of the claimed invention, as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the technical quality of the patented subject matter. Thus, a nexus is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered, if that evidence is to be given substantial weight enroute to [a] conclusion on the obviousness issue. Id. at 1539, 218 USPQ at 879. Accord EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908, 225 USPQ 20, 26 (Fed.Cir.1985) (a 'secondary consideration' must be carefully appraised as to its evidentiary value); Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575, 222 USPQ 744, 746 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 2138, 85 L.Ed.2d 496 (1985); In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577, 224 USPQ 617, 625 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Ruben Condenser Co. v. Aerovox Corp., 77 F.2d 266, 268, 26 USPQ 62, 63 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 296 U.S. 623, 56 S.Ct. 145, 80 L.Ed. 443 (1935) (where Judge Learned Hand stated, While it is always the safest course to test a putative invention by what went before and what came after, it is easy to be misled. Nothing is less reliable than uncritically to accept its welcome by the art, even though it displace[s] what went before). Viewed in a light most favorable to Cable, from the Lema declaration an inference of some commercial success might be deduced, but as to establishing any nexus between that hypothetical success and the merits of the claimed invention, no evidence was submitted in the declaration or elsewhere that could justify giving weight to the declaration in reaching a conclusion on obviousness. After considering the Lema declaration the district court correctly determined to accord it no weight. 49
50 Cable alleges that Genmark copied the Cable night light in designing the accused infringing device and that this alleged copying is evidence of nonobviousness of the Schwartz patent. The evidence in support of the charge of copying in designing the Genmark product is ambiguous, even viewed in a light favorable to Cable. Deposition testimony of Thomas E. Corder, president of Diablo Technologies, Inc., apparently a successor of Diablo Products Corp., was offered on this point, but Genmark's own characterization of the implication of this evidence was merely that it showed that Corder had access to and analyzed the appearance of plaintiff's night light during the period he was developing the accused Diablo [later Genmark] night light. Access to, and analysis of, other products in the market is hardly rare, even in the design stages of competing devices. Access in combination with similarity can create a strong inference of copying, but here Cable, as noted by the district court, failed to submit into evidence a sample of its own device for comparative purposes in evaluating the extent of similarity. 51 The Lema declaration states that defendant [Genmark] deliberately copied plaintiff's night light when it designed its own night light, but only on information and belief, which under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) is an inadequate basis upon which to base affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment. 13 Thus, in this instance, product copying at the design stage would be a strained inference. 52 Further, in pressing the relevance to nonobviousness of purported copying by Genmark, [a]s is often the case [Cable] failed to distinguish infringement by a defendant from that of numerous other competitors. Note, Subtests of Nonobviousness: A Nontechnical Approach to Patent Validity, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1169, 1179 n. 51 (1964) (cited in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 694, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), as relevant to the decision of the Supreme Court to include secondary indicia in the prescribed obviousness determination). It is our conclusion that more than the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is needed to make that action significant to a determination of the obviousness issue. Accord Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed.Cir.1984), where copying of a patented device, despite the failure of protracted efforts by the copyist to design a similar device, was found to be an admission of the mechanical superiority of the patented version, but not strong evidence of nonobviousness. 14 53 Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent. 54 We do not concur in the reasoning evidenced by the statement of the district court that it is just as likely that the similarity (assuming it exists) is more attributable to the simple obviousness of plaintiff's design rather than to defendant's deliberate mimicry. 582 F.Supp. at 97, 223 USPQ at 290. The record simply offers nothing in this regard, and the speculation involved is unwarranted. Nevertheless, in view of Cable's poor showing as to copying and in view of the barrenness of the record on the nexus between any copying arguably shown and the nonobviousness of the claimed invention, it would have been improper to give the alleged copying by Genmark much weight in the obviousness analysis. Thus, the district court treated this issue appropriately, and its comment above as to the reason for copying, if any exists, is but harmless error.
55 Based on a review of the record as discussed above, it is our conclusion that the patent portion of this case was properly resolved by a grant of summary judgment and that the Schwartz patent is invalid as being directed to obvious subject matter. We can discern no such genuinely disputed questions of fact material to such a judgment as would warrant a trial. 56 The art involved is easily grasped. The difference between the teaching of each reference and the claimed subject matter is clear, as is how those teachings are to be combined to yield the subject invention. No issue has been raised about the level of skill employed in analysis, that of an ordinary layman of average intelligence and one in this case most favorable to Cable Electric. Cf. Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland, 713 F.2d 774, 779 n. 2, 218 USPQ 673, 676 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.1983). Secondary considerations for the reasons stated above have been given proper weight. 57 Cable raises objection to the statement of the district court that it has no difficulty finding it more likely than not that ... a shade of the type plaintiff claims ... [is] an obvious solution to the problem confronted by plaintiff. Naturally, a determination on the issue of obviousness is no finding; it is question of law. Nevertheless, this slip and the concomitant use of the phrase, more likely than not, are but harmless rhetorical error. Elsewhere throughout the patent opinion the district court shows a good understanding of the nature of and analysis associated with reaching a conclusion on obviousness. Nor do we agree with Cable that the district court either was confused as to what the claimed invention in suit was or failed to consider that invention as a whole.