Agrizap v. Woodstream involved a patent (5,949,636) held by Agrizap, Inc. covering a method and apparatus for electrocuting pests such as rodents. Woodstream Corp., first licensed and then begain producing its own version of the product, prompting a suit by Agrizap for fraudulent misrepresentation and patent infringement. The jury found the patent to be valid and infringed; however, the district court granted Woodstream's JMOL motion that the patent was not infringed.
On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the JMOL, stating that the '636 patent was obvious in light of Agrizap's earlier patent (5,269,091) for another pest electrocution device, with the only difference between the two being the trigger mechanism. The '091 patent disclosed a mechanical switch to complete its circuit; the '636 patent disclosed a resistive switch, which was well-known in the prior art.
The court, citing KSR v. Teleflex, found the '636 patent to be "a textbook case of when the asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield predictable results." Furthermore, the court found that secondary evidence of non-obviousness, such as the commercial success of the product, Woodstream's copying of the product, and a long-felt need for electronic rat traps was insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness.
On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the JMOL, stating that the '636 patent was obvious in light of Agrizap's earlier patent (5,269,091) for another pest electrocution device, with the only difference between the two being the trigger mechanism. The '091 patent disclosed a mechanical switch to complete its circuit; the '636 patent disclosed a resistive switch, which was well-known in the prior art.
The court, citing KSR v. Teleflex, found the '636 patent to be "a textbook case of when the asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield predictable results." Furthermore, the court found that secondary evidence of non-obviousness, such as the commercial success of the product, Woodstream's copying of the product, and a long-felt need for electronic rat traps was insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness.
Leave a comment