In ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., No. 2022-1092 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ADASA under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but reversed the determination that the claim-at-issue is neither anticipated nor obvious.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,798,967 is directed to a system for commissioning RFID tags for unique object identification and tracking. The Federal Circuit held that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific, hardware-based data structure improving upon RFID encoding. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on lack of anticipation and non-obviousness, holding that the district court read the prior art too narrowly. Even though the prior art references discussed the claimed concepts differently, their disclosures were sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision not to include a lumpsum option for damages in the jury verdict form and to exclude Avery's licenses and expert testimony from evidence. The Federal Circuit also vacated discovery sanctions against Avery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
