Opinion ID: 1405856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Secondary Considerations: Commercial Success

Text: Abbott contends that even if the district court were correct in finding a prima facie case of obviousness, that finding is overcome by evidence of commercial success. The district court concluded that Abbott failed to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the claims of the '551 patent and the success of Abbott's Exactech product. Trial Opinion, 565 F.Supp.2d at 1124. This finding is not clearly erroneous. In order to overcome a finding of obviousness by demonstrating commercial success, [a] nexus between commercial success and the claimed features is required. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed.Cir.2000). [T]he asserted commercial success of the product must be due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art. J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1997). Abbott argues on appeal that the district court erred by requiring Abbott to show that the commercial success of the Exactech product was attributable to the '551 patent, and that Abbott was entitled to a presumption that the commercial success was due to the invention claimed in the '551 patent. Abbott claims that if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus. Brown & Williamson, 229 F.3d at 1130. Abbott is incorrect in contending that it was entitled to the presumption of a nexus. This is not a situation where the success of a product can be attributed to a single patent, because Abbott's Exactech product embodied at least two patents: the '382 patent and the '551 patent. Abbott's expert, Dr. Johnson, admitted that the Exactech strips met all of the limitations of claim 1 of the '382 patent. Furthermore, for the fifteen years that the product was on the marketduring which the '382 patent was valid and in force for the entire period save for the final three months Abbott marked the product with the '382 patent, both before and after the '551 patent issued. As such, there is no presumption that the product's success was due only to the '551 patent. The defendants presented uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the Exactech product's success was due to features already present in prior art such as the '382 patent. Abbott's primary witness on commercial success conceded that the Exactech product was successful because it offered fast disposal for whole blood that could directly be put onto the strip, [provided] the reading, and then basically that strip [was] disposable. J.A. 2640. In addition, the defendants presented numerous declarations that Abbott had filed with the PTO during the prosecution of the '551 patent describing the success of the Exactech strips, all of which attested to the product's ease of use, short user training period, and ability to consistently obtain accurate test results, J.A. 6969, and [t]he electrode configuration (allowing a small sample size), the size of the test strips, and the ease with which they can be stored, used and disposed of, J.A. 6985. Abbott offered nothing to contradict this evidence and show that the commercial success of the Exactech product was due to the lack of a protective membrane over the sensor electrode. Under these circumstances, the district court did not err in rejecting Abbott's assertion that commercial success supported a finding of nonobviousness.
For the reasons stated above, we find no error with the district court's conclusion that claims 1-4 of the '551 patent would have been obvious in light of the prior art.