{"id":2120,"date":"2018-07-27T16:11:04","date_gmt":"2018-07-27T20:11:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2120"},"modified":"2018-07-28T20:22:51","modified_gmt":"2018-07-29T00:22:51","slug":"distribution-of-catalogs-at-a-tradeshow-was-accessible-with-reasonable-diligence-and-was-a-printed-publication-under-102b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2120","title":{"rendered":"Distribution of Catalogs at a Tradeshow Was Accessible with Reasonable Diligence, and was a Printed Publication under 102(b)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC<\/a>, [2017-1894, 2017-1936] (July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit\u00a0vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions in\u00a0IPR2015-01078 and IPR2015-01080 that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694 relating to\u00a0action sport video\u00a0cameras or camcorders that are configured for remote\u00a0image acquisition control and viewing.<\/p>\n

The focus of the appeal was whether a Go Pro catalog, which\u00a0disclosed a digital camera linked to a wireless viewfinder\/controller that allows for a user preview before recording, was prior art.\u00a0 While the PTAB considered the catalog to be prior art in its decision instituting the IPRs, Contour argued that the catalog was not a printed publication, and the PTAB agreed,\u00a0 finding that\u00a0that the GoPro had not shown that its Catalog was disseminated or otherwise\u00a0made available to the extent that persons interested\u00a0and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art and\u00a0exercising reasonable diligence could have located it.<\/p>\n

The Board found all the evidence presented by GoPro\u00a0credible, but explained that GoPro did not provide evidence\u00a0that the dealer show was advertised or announced\u00a0to the public, such that a person interested and ordinarily\u00a0skilled in the art from the public would have known about
\nit.\u00a0 The Board found\u00a0that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be\u00a0interested in the show where the catalogs were distributed because it was not an academic\u00a0conference or camera industry conference, but
\nrather a dealer show for action sports vehicles like motorcycles,\u00a0 motorbikes, ATVs, snowmobiles, and watercraft.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit disagreed, saying that\u00a0the case law regarding accessibility is not\u00a0as narrow as the Board interpreted it. The Board focused\u00a0on only one of several factors that are relevant to determining
\npublic accessibility in the context of materials\u00a0distributed at conferences or meetings, but cited no case where the Federal Circuit held that the the expertise of\u00a0the target audience was dispositive.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that the fact that the dealer show was focused on action\u00a0sports vehicles was not preclusive of persons ordinarily\u00a0skilled in the art from attending to see what POV digital\u00a0cameras were being advertised and displayed. The Federal Circuit noted that a primary purpose of POV cameras\u00a0is for use on vehicles in extreme action environments,\u00a0such as the ones advertised at the show.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit further noted that the\u00a0The vendor list provided by Go Pro\u00a0listed a number of vendors\u00a0who likely sell, produce and\/or have a professional interest\u00a0in digital video cameras, and that the show was directed to\u00a0action sports vehicles\u00a0and accessories (emphasis in original).<\/em><\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0the\u00a0standard for public accessibility is one of \u201creasonable\u00a0diligence\u201d\u00a0to locate the\u00a0information by \u201cinterested members of the relevant public.\u201d\u00a0 A dealer show focused on extreme sports vehicles is an\u00a0obvious forum for POV action sports cameras.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit concluded that\u00a0GoPro met its burden\u00a0to show that its catalog is a printed publication under\u00a0\u00a7102(b).\u00a0 The Federal Circuit vacated\u00a0vacate the Board\u2019s decision that claims 1\u201320 of the
\n\u2019694 patent and claims 1, 2, and 11\u201330 of the \u2019954 patent were not unpatentable and remanded for further proceedings\u00a0consistent with its opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, [2017-1894, 2017-1936] (July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit\u00a0vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions in\u00a0IPR2015-01078 and IPR2015-01080 that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694 relating to\u00a0action sport video\u00a0cameras or camcorders that are configured … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,81,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inter-partes-review","category-printed-publication","category-uncategorized"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2120"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2126,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions\/2126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}