Opinion ID: 207676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Long-Felt Need

Text: Evidence that an invention satisfied a long-felt and unmet need that existed on the patent's filing date is a secondary consideration of nonobviousness. See Procter & Gamble, 566 F.3d at 998. Perfect Web claims that the '400 patent solved a long-felt need for an efficient bulk e-mail system. Krishnamurthy identified two unique problems with systems available before April 2000 that employed oversending. First, marketers needed to transmit excess e-mail messages for which they received no payment. Second, more customers opted out of such systems because they received too many unwanted messages. J.A. 1958. One of InfoUSA's experts, Brady, agreed that oversending could result in losing money and burning up a list of available addresses. Id. 1909. Even assuming, as we must for summary judgment, that Perfect Web is factually correct about the drawbacks of oversending, Perfect Web fails to show that these drawbacks constituted a long-felt, unmet need alleviated by the patent. Perfect Web provided no evidence to explain how long this need was felt, or when the problem first arose. See Tex. Instruments v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ([L]ong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem.). Nor does the evidence show that the '400 patent met any such need. Krishnamurthy made the bare assertion that the patent provided improved efficiency, J.A. 1959, but cited no supporting data to show, for example, that the invention actually reduced marketing costs, time, or the number of consumers who opt out. Moreover, as we have often held, evidence of secondary considerations does not always overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming judgment as a matter of law of obviousness). In the end, Perfect Web's unsupported contentions are legally insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Because we agree with the district court's holding of obviousness as to all asserted claims, we need not and do not reach its alternative reasons for holding the '400 patent invalidnamely, that the claims were anticipated and directed to unpatentable subject matter.