In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,186,475 on\u00a0platform suspension systems for lawnmowers.<\/p>\n
The claims required\u00a0\u201can operator platform that supports the seat and an\u00a0entire body of an operator during use of the utility vehicle,\u201d while Toro maintained that because part of the user’s body were supported by the controls, which were not mounted on the operator platform, its accused lawnmowers\u00a0do not meet the limitation\u00a0\u201can entire body of an operator.\u201d<\/p>\n
On appeal Toro argued that the district\u00a0court\u2019s construction of \u201can entire body of an operator\u201d was improper because it excludes the operator\u2019s hands and arms. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that nowhere did the district court conclude that \u201can entire body of an operator\u201d excluded the operator\u2019s arms and\u00a0hands. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that the patent makes\u00a0clear that it is the suspended operator platform that\u00a0supports \u201can entire body of an operator\u201d and that the\u00a0operator platform is a separate and distinct element from\u00a0the steering controls. However this really did not address Toro’s argument that if the controls are connected to the platform, then the platform supports the users entire body, but when the controls are attached to something else, something else helps support the user’s body.<\/p>\n
Toro also argued that if the steering controls are not mounted on
\nthe operator platform, the operator\u2019s hands will not\u00a0be isolated from shock loads. However, the Federal Circuit rejected this argument as importing limitations into the claims.<\/p>\n
On the question of validity, the district court rejected Toro’s obviousness contention because a patent composed of
\nseveral elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
\nthat each of its elements was, independently,
\nknown in the prior art. \u00a0The district court said that Toro provided \u201cno reason, and the Court cannot imagine one,\u00a0that a person of ordinary skill in this field would combine\u00a0a motorcycle shock with a suspended truck cab and come\u00a0up with a suspended operator platform.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit agreed that\u00a0Toro provided no\u00a0explanation or reasoning for concluding that one of skill in\u00a0the art would have combined these particular references\u00a0to produce the claimed invention. Without any explanation\u00a0as to how or why the references would be combined to\u00a0arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only\u00a0hindsight bias that KSR warns against. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that while it understands that the obviousness
\nanalysis cannot be confined by a formalistic\u00a0conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, it also recognizes that it “cannot allow hindsight\u00a0bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art\u00a0patches into something that is the claimed invention.”<\/p>\n
The Federal CIrcuit also agreed with the district court that there was irreparable harm, because \u201cit is impossible to quantify the damages caused by the loss of a potentially lifelong customer.\u201d<\/p>\n
Finally, the Federal Circuit agreed with the scope of the injunction, rejecting Toro’s argument that that it was too broad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., v. The Toro Company, [2016-2433, 2016-2514] (February 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed a modified preliminary injunction against Toro’s continued infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,186,475 on\u00a0platform suspension systems for lawnmowers. The claims required\u00a0\u201can operator … Continue reading