No. 18-823
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.
Amici (1)Response Waived
Tags: invention invention-evaluation legal-analysis long-felt-need non-obviousness obviousness obviousness-standard patent patent-invalidity patent-law prima-facie prior-art rebuttal secondary-considerations
Key Terms:
Securities Patent
Securities Patent
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether evidence of 'secondary considerations' is less important in rebutting prima facie evidence of obviousness
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether evidence of “secondary considerations” (e.g., a long-felt, but unresolved, need for the patented invention) is less important, functioning at a diminished capacity from time to time to rebut prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-23
Brief amicus curiae of US Inventor, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-09
Waiver of right of respondent Nash Manufacturing, Inc. to respond filed.
2018-12-26
Attorneys
Nash Manufacturing, Inc.
Joseph Franklin Cleveland Jr. — Brackett & Ellis, P. C., Respondent
US Inventor, Inc., Josh Malone and Twelve Inventor Clubs
ZUP, LLC
Matthew M. Wawrzyn — Wawrzyn & Jarvis LLC, Petitioner