What more can an appeals court do to twist the dagger deeper into the heart of a stabbed inventor?
We speak here of INVENTIO AG v. OTIS ELEVATOR (Fed. Cir. Decided: November 27, 2012) ["Costs to Otis"]
And the dagger to the heart?
That comes with an "appeals" court deciding de novo issues of fact including, how did the person of ordinary skill in the art think at the time of invention.
The jury found in favor of the inventor, that the invention was not obvious.
Au contraire says the "appeals" court:
"So how could it not “logically ... commend itself to [the ’094] inventor’s attention in considering his problem” of seamlessly controlling access to elevators? ... We need not decide the question because, based on the jury charge, a reasonable juror could not conclude that the RFID prior art was nonanalogous. ... Because the jury should have found the RFID prior art analogous, the conclusion becomes inescapable that ’094 patent is a clear example of a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods [yielding] no more than . . . predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., ..."