Pregis Corp. v. Kappos
700 F.3d 1348
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- Free-Flow and Pregis compete in air-filled packaging; patents at issue are Fuss ’377, Fuss ’904, Perkins ’837 (and Perkins ’397 as related).
- Pregis filed suit for noninfringement and invalidity, and also filed APA claims against the PTO’s issuance of the patents; Free-Flow counterclaimed for infringement.
- District court denied Pregis’ APA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; jury found the asserted claims invalid for obviousness and certain claims noninfringing.
- Jury found Fuss ’377, Fuss ’904, Perkins ’837 invalid for obviousness; Perkins ’397 not invalid; no infringement found; no willful infringement; zero damages.
- Court affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL on validity and upheld APA dismissal; ruled that third-party APA review of PTO decisions to issue patents is precluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obviousness of Fuss ’377, Fuss ’904, Perkins ’837 | Free-Flow: prior art teaches elements but no reason to combine; some teaching away. | Pregis: a motivation to combine exists; prior art can be combined with predictable results. | Affirmed: claims invalid for obviousness. |
| APA review of PTO reasons for issuing patents | Pregis: APA review is available to challenge PTO’s stated reasons under § 702. | Court should preclude APA review due to Patent Act framework. | Affirmed: third parties cannot use APA to challenge PTO’s reasons for issuing patents. |
| Adequacy of in-court remedies alternative to APA | Pregis: inter partes reexamination or invalidity defenses are not adequate substitutes. | Patent Act provides adequate avenues (reexamination, invalidity defenses, declaratory actions). | Affirmed: remedies under the Patent Act are adequate; APA precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (establishes the four-factor test for obviousness; law is a question of fact when underlying facts are present.)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (concrete standard for obviousness; motivation to combine.)
- Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. v. United States Patent & Trademark Office, 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (preclusion of APA review of PTO decisions to issue patents (reexamination context).)
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (zone-of-interests limitation; public-interest standing for APA review.)
- Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340 (1984) (framework for preclusion analysis; look to statutory scheme.)
- Bowen v. Mich. Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (presumption against preclusion absent clear statutory intent.)
- Avia Group Int’l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (review structure for mixed administrative/judicial remedies.)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (fact-finding with respect to obviousness questions.)
- LNP Engineering Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence standard for obviousness findings.)