Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys.

5 Citing cases

  1. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

    No. 2023-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024)   1 Legal Analyses

    "Obviousness is a question of law with underlying factual issues ...." Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The "test for obviousness is not . . . that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."

  2. In re Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc.

    No. 2023-1063 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 18, 2024)

    "Evidence of a reasonable expectation of success, just like evidence of a motivation to combine, may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved." Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

  3. Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp.

    No. 2022-1824 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2024)

    In concluding that Intel had proven the challenged claims obvious over Yu, the Board made an implicit finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of being able to successfully implement Yu's power amplifier into a mobile device. "[A]n implicit finding on reasonable expectation of success under such circumstances is acceptable" where, as here, the Board's path can be reasonably discerned. Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Board, after pointing to Yu's paragraph 34 and its Figures 2-4, found that a skilled artisan "would have made any necessary modifications so that a mobile device could appropriately implement Yu's power amplifier." J.A. 49-50.

  4. In re McDonald

    No. 2024-1015 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 10, 2024)

    In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). This case involves a conclusion of obviousness based on determinations that a combination of prior-art references teaches the claimed limitations and that a relevant artisan would have had a motivation to make the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. See, e.g., KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Systems, Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., 903 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018). What a prior-art reference discloses and whether a relevant artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify references or reasonably expected success are questions of fact.

  5. Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLC

    No. 2023-1046 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 24, 2024)

    We have held that "[u]nlike a motivation to combine determination, which requires an explicit analysis, a finding of reasonable expectation of success can be implicit." Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (first citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); and then citing Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 836 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). If a party has made the substance of the expectation of success argument, that is sufficient.