Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In their first true application of the Supreme Court's obviousness pronouncement in KSR v. Teleflex, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a finding of obviousness.
Leapfrog and Fisher-Price compete in the toy market. In this case, leapfrog sued Fisher-Price -- alleging that Fisher-Price's PowerTouch Learning System infringes claim 35 of Leapfrog's patent.
The trial court found the patent not-infringed and invalid as obvious. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed, noting that the obviousness analysis requires a common sense approach rather than any rigid formula.
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __ (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
The results may have serious implications for Internet-related patents that have a close non-Internet corollary. The two pieces of prior art were Bevin (electro-mechanical, but not electronic, toy for phonetic learning) and SSR (electronic book-type toy). Together, the two references teach almost all the elements of the asserted claim, and the courts found their combination to be appropriate.
We agree with the district court that one of ordinary skill in the art of children’s learning toys would have found it obvious to combine the Bevan device with the SSR to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost. While the SSR only permits generation of a sound corresponding to the first letter of a word, it does so using electronic means. The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention (Bevan) using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art (the SSR). We therefore also find no clear error in the finding of the district court that one of ordinary skill in the art could have utilized the electronics of the SSR device, with the method of operation taught by Bevan, to allow a child to press each individual letter in a word and hear the individual phonemes associated with each letter to sound out the words.
The one remaining limitation -- a "reader" -- was "well-known in the art at the time of the invention" and its combination. That known element could be combined because it provides "an added benefit and simplified use of the toy for the child in order to increase its marketability."
Finally, the court gave the patentee a chance to avoid the combination.
Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Nor does Leapfrog present any evidence that the inclusion of a device commonly used in the field of electronics (a reader), and even in the narrower art of electronic children’s toys, represented an unobvious step over the prior art.
Secondary factors not enough to save the day:
The district court explicitly stated in its opinion that Leapfrog had provided substantial evidence of commercial success, praise, and long-felt need, but that, given the strength of the prima facie obviousness showing, the evidence on secondary considerations was inadequate to overcome a final conclusion that claim 25 would have been obvious.
Obviousness affirmed.
Notes:
- Judgment of non-infringement was also affirmed.
- Read the case
