Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

July 27, 2018

GOPRO, INC., Appellant
v.
CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC, Appellee

          Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2015-01078, IPR2015-01080.

          Mark A. Lemley, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant.

          Also represented by Adam R. Brausa; Karineh Khachatourian, Duane Morris LLP, Palo Alto, CA.

          Paul Michael Schoenhard, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee.

          Also represented by Ian Barnett Brooks, Nicole Jantzi.

          Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

          Reyna, Circuit Judge.

         GoPro, Inc. appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two inter partes review proceedings. In the proceedings, the Board found that the petitioner, GoPro, did not demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious. The Board based this decision on its finding that a certain GoPro catalog is not a prior art printed publication. We disagree. We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         Background

         A. The '954 patent and '694 patent

         Contour IP Holding LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 890, 954 ("the '954 patent") and 8, 896, 694 ("the '694 patent"). The patents share a common specification that generally relates to and describes action sport video cameras or camcorders that are configured for remote image acquisition control and viewing.[1] '954 patent, col. 1 ll. 16-17. According to the patents, the claimed device uses global positioning system (GPS) technology to track its location during recording and a wireless connection protocol, such as Bluetooth, to "provide control signals or stream data to [the] wearable video camera and to access image content stored on or streaming from [the] wearable video camera." Id. at col. 1 ll. 53-62, col. 16 ll. 50-60. The patents further describe that "[w]hen recording video or taking photographs in a sports application, [a] digital video camera . . . is often mounted in a location that does not permit the user to easily see the camera." Id. at col. 19 ll. 35-37. The digital camera includes wireless communication capability to allow another device, such as a smartphone or tablet, to control camera settings in real time, access video stored on the camera, and act as a "viewfinder" to preview what the camera sees. Id. at col. 19 l. 38-col. 20 l. 47.

         Both the '954 and '694 patents claim priority to a provisional application filed on September 13, 2010. Thus, the one-year critical date is September 13, 2009.

         B. Proceedings Before the Board

         GoPro petitioned for inter partes review ("IPR") of the '954 and '694 patents on April 20, 2015. GoPro challenged the patentability of claims 1-30 of the '954 patent and claims 1-20 of the '694 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on a 2009 GoPro sales catalog ("the GoPro Catalog") as prior art in each petition. The GoPro Catalog discloses a digital camera linked to a wireless viewfinder/controller that allows for a user preview ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.