United States: An Obviousness Determination May Be Overturned When The Evidence Includes Merely Conclusory Statements About Motivation To Combine Prior Art

In InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGo Communications, Inc., No. 13-1201 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of noninfringement of three asserted patents, affirmed the district court's claim construction, reversed verdicts that two of the asserted patents were invalid for obviousness, and remanded with instructions to vacate the invalidity judgments.  

InTouch Technologies, Inc. ("InTouch") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,346,962 ("the '962 patent"); 6,925,357 ("the '357 patent"); and 7,593,030 ("the '030 patent") (collectively "the asserted patents").  The asserted patents are directed to telepresence robots for use in the healthcare industry.  InTouch's system uses a video display, two-way audio, and a camera to permit a user to operate the robot from a remote location via a computer or tablet.  The '357 and '030 patents recite an arbitrator to control access to the robots, and the '357 patent also recites a call back mechanism to inform users who were previously denied access that the robot is available.  In 2012, InTouch filed suit against VGo Communications, Inc. ("VGo"), a company that produces a robot system that a user can control remotely to interact with others in a separate location, alleging infringement of the '357, '030, and '962 patents.  VGo counterclaimed for DJ of noninfringement and invalidity. 

After a five-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of VGo, finding noninfringement for all of the asserted patents.  The jury also found independent claim 79 of the '357 patent and claim 1 of the '030 patent invalid for obviousness.  InTouch filed a motion for JMOL or a new trial on the issues of invalidity and noninfringement, which was denied by the district court.  The district court found that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the VGo system did not perform the "arbitrating" limitation because VGo's system did not include a mechanism for determining which remote station had exclusive control of the robot and did not perform the "call back mechanism" limitation because the VGo system did not send a message to specific users who previously were denied access to a particular robot.  The district court also upheld the jury's obviousness findings, stating that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, including the testimony of VGo's expert. InTouch appealed.

"Dr. Yanco's testimony was nothing more than impermissible hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references.  While she opined that the references were like separate pieces of a simple jigsaw puzzle, she did not explain what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place these pieces together." Slip op. at 34-35.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit first addressed and upheld the claim construction rulings for the terms "arbitrating" and "call back mechanism."  For the "arbitrating" term, the Court found that the "claim language itself requires that the arbitrator control access to the robot by remote terminals."  Slip op. at 18.  The Court also observed that the "written description explains that the arbitrator needs to 'resolve access requests from various users,'" instead of merely allowing access.  Id. (citation omitted).  For these reasons, the Court held that the district court did not err in construing the "arbitrator" and "arbitrating" terms "to require a determination of which user among multiple users has exclusive control of the robot."  Id. at 19. 

The Court used similar reasoning to uphold the district court's construction of the term "call back mechanism."  The Court again pointed to the plain language of the claim, noting that claim 79 of the '357 patent recites "a call back mechanism that informs a user that was denied access to said mobile robot that said mobile robot can be accessed."  Id. at 20.  According to the Court, the prosecution history also made clear "that the call back mechanism sends a message to call back only those specific users that previously requested access and were denied that access."  Id. at 21-22.  For these reasons, the Court concluded that "the proper construction of the term 'call back mechanism' requires 'a device that sends a message to a specific user or users who previously were denied access to a particular mobile robot that the same mobile robot can now be accessed.'"  Id. at 22. 

The Court next reviewed the jury's noninfringement verdicts and upheld the district court's findings that all three verdicts were supported by substantial evidence.  In upholding the jury's verdicts, the Court pointed to VGo's testimony that its system did not contain an arbitrator.  The Court observed that VGo's system did not decide which user could connect to and control the robot because VGo's system simply gave exclusive control to the first user who requested access to the robot.  The Court also found there was substantial evidence to support a jury's verdict that VGo's system did include a call back mechanism.  The Court noted that VGo submitted testimony that, although its robot included a status indicator to inform users when a previously occupied robot is free, it did not include the ability to distinguish which users had previously been denied access to the robot or which users wanted access to an already-in-use robot.  The Court also examined the evidence to support noninfringement of a third claim limitation, "actuating the camera."  In finding substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, the Court highlighted VGo's testimony that the camera movement in the VGo system depended on the position of a computer cursor on a computer program, which differed from InTouch's claims that required "mov[ing] the camera in the direction indicated by the pointing device movement."  Id. at 30.  Because the Court's role was to determine whether there was substantial evidence upon which the jury could predicate its noninfringement finding, the Court upheld the district court's affirmance of the jury's noninfringement verdicts. 

The Court next reviewed the jury's invalidity verdicts for claim 79 of the '357 patent and claim 1 of the '030 patent.  Because the jury found the claims invalid, the Court stated that it would uphold the invalidity finding if there was sufficient evidence to support any of the alternative theories of invalidity.  The Court first examined the evidence from VGo's expert, Dr. Yanco, regarding invalidity of the '357 and the '030 patents, and determined that the evidence on which VGo relied was not substantial enough to support an obviousness finding.  According to the Court, Dr. Yanco's testimony was insufficient to support the jury's verdict because Dr. Yanco (1) failed to identify sufficient reasons or motivations to combine the various asserted prior art references; (2) failed to focus on the relevant time frame of 2001, as opposed to the time at which the case was occurring; and (3) failed to consider any objective evidence of nonobviousness.  The Court noted that Dr. Yanco merely testified that the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art and could have been combined, but she never provided any rationale why one of ordinary skill would have combined such references.  The Court stated that Dr. Yanco's conclusory references about why a skilled artisan could have combined the references, as opposed to why a skilled artisan would have combined the references, were insufficient to support the jury's obviousness verdict.  For these reasons, the Court held that Dr. Yanco's analysis was "incomplete" and failed to establish obviousness by clear and convincing evidence.  Id. at 41-42.

Lastly, the Court examined whether the district court erred by admitting testimony related to legal opinions from VGo's outside counsel.  Although the Court agreed that the testimony was improper, it held that InTouch failed to establish that the infringement verdict was affected by this error.

For the above reasons, the Court affirmed the judgment of noninfringement for all three asserted patents, affirmed the district court's claim constructions, reversed the findings of invalidity regarding the '357 and the '030 patents, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the invalidity judgments.

Judges:  Rader, Lourie, O'Malley (author)

[Appealed from C.D. Cal., Judge Anderson]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, June, 2014.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
17 Nov 2018, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan partner Clare Cornell will present “Covert Trademark Use in the Internet: Licit or Illicit” at the Asian Patent Attorneys Association Conference.

20 Nov 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan attorneys Tom Irving, Josh Goldberg, and Cory Bell will analyze Patent Trial and Appeal Board denials and partial denials, offering take-home lessons applicable in

21 Nov 2018, Workshop, London, UK

Finnegan partner Leythem Wall will consider European claim drafting strategy and lead the Chemical Workshop during a two-day course, hosted by Management Forum.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions