Log in
Show password
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Dynamic quotes 


SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Campbell Soup : CAFC Clarifies Proving "Nexus" For Objective Indicia In A Design Patent Case

08/28/2021 | 06:09am EDT


In Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., Nos. 20-2344 and 21-1019 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") reversed the Final Written Decisions in two inter partes reviews ("IPRs"), IPR2017-00091 and IPR2017-00094. In the IPRs, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") concluded that the petitioner (Campbell) did not demonstrate that Gamon's claimed designs in U.S. Design Pat. Nos. D612,646 and D621,645, were unpatentable as obvious. 


The patents at issue relate to a gravity feed dispenser display for canned products, such as soup. Gamon sued Campbell for infringement in 2015, and Campbell subsequently petitioned for IPR. The Board held Campbell failed to prove the challenged claims were unpatentable because the asserted prior art reference, Linz, was not similar enough to constitute a primary reference. Id. at *7.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, vacated, and remanded.

On remand, the Board again found Campbell failed to prove unpatentability. According to the Board, "although Linz alone has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed designs, it is outweighed by objective indicia of nonobviousness, namely [commercial success, industry praise, and copying]." Id. The Board presumed a nexus between the objective evidence and the claimed designs because it found that Gamon's product was coextensive with its claims. Id. The Board also found that Gamon established nexus-in-fact "regardless of the presumption." Id.

Federal Circuit Decision

For design patents as with utility patents, the obviousness analysis starts by addressing the first three Graham factors. For design patents, this means determining "whether a designer of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the prior art to create 'the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.'" Id. at *8. The Board "found that Linz and the claimed designs share the same overall visual appearance." Id. at *10. The Federal Circuit did not disturb the Board's conclusion with respect to this determination.

The obviousness analysis must next consider the fourth Graham factor, objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, long felt but unmet needs, and failure of others. Id. at *8. To be probative, the evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness must have a "nexus" to the claims, i.e., "there must be a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence and the patented invention." Id. at *10. A nexus may be presumed if the evidence is tied to a specific product that is "coextensive" with the claimed invention, meaning that the product "is the invention disclosed and claimed." Id. (emphasis in original). Absent the presumption, a patentee may still establish nexus-in-fact by showing that the objective indicia are the "direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention," rather than features known in the prior art. Id. at *11. In this case, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding of either a presumption of nexus or nexus-in-fact between the evidence of commercial success and praise and the claimed designs. Id. at *10.

According to the Federal Circuit, the Board misunderstood the law with respect to the coextensiveness required for a presumption of nexus when it dismissed the unclaimed features of the design as "not prominent ornamental features." Id. at *11. The Federal Circuit explained:

In determining coextensiveness, the question is not whether unclaimed features are insignificant to a product's ornamental design. The question is instead whether unclaimed features are "insignificant," period.  . By limiting its analysis to ornamental significance, the Board simply did not answer the relevant question: whether the iQ Maximizer "is the invention."

Id. at *11 (emphasis in original).

The Federal Circuit noted that the type of patent (utility or design) does not impact the coextensiveness analysis. "[W]e reject the proposition that a product satisfies the coextensiveness requirement in the design patent context merely if its unclaimed features are ornamentally insignificant." Id. (emphasis in original).

Applying the correct legal standard, the Federal Circuit found a lack of coextensiveness between the product sold and the claimed design prohibited the presumption of a nexus. The product sold "undisputedly includes significant unclaimed functional elements." Id.

The Federal Circuit went on to find substantial evidence did not support a nexus-in-fact either. The Federal Circuit again noted that the type of patent did not impact the analysis and that, whether the patent is a design or a utility patent, the objective indicia evidence must have a nexus with the unique characteristics of the claims at issue. Id. at *14.

Applying the correct legal standard, the Federal Circuit found that the evidence presented as to commercial success and industry praise related to features previously known in the prior art rather than features of the claims that had been found to be new and unique, and thus did not support a nexus-in-fact. Id. at *12-13.

Finally, the Federal Circuit considered evidence of copying but found that, even if the evidence of copying was assumed to be supported, it was insufficient alone to outweigh the strong evidence of obviousness. Id. at *14-15.


The decision in Campbell Soup provides a reminder to patent owners that objective evidence is only valuable if a nexus is established with the claimed subject matter. The decision also highlights that the legal analyses to determine coextensiveness and nexus-in-fact do not depend on the type of patent, and that the analyses for design patents are the same as for utility patents. Courts and the Board are looking for causation between the objective evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. A mere correlation may not be sufficient.

Patent Owners should consider loading evidence into prosecution, along with crisp and compelling arguments to show no prima facie case of obviousness, at least in applications likely to end up in litigation or AIA post-grant proceedings. Solid evidentiary showings and/or declarations, in addition to on-point legal arguments, may help to develop strong patentability records. Prudently establishing such records during prosecution could support Patent Owner's later efforts to persuade the Board that Petitioner does not have a "reasonable likelihood" of success and thus achieve denial of institution.

Submission of this evidence requires careful thought and planning. Evidence or a declaration thrown together in haste, or otherwise considered defective, may even be harmful rather than helpful.1Additionally, the evidence must be truthful and not misleading, as inequitable conduct is still alive and well post-Therasense.

If, as a Patent Owner, you are fortunate to have good objective evidence of nonobviousness, then it is worth the effort to present that evidence and explain the nexus between that evidence and the new and unique merits of the claimed invention to the Board in detail. The best objective evidence of nonobviousness will be of no value if no nexus to the claimed invention is shown.


1. See, e.g., K-40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc., IPR2013-00203, Paper 6, at 6 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013) (instituting IPR based on defective declaration submitted during prosecution).

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.

Mr Jeffrey Freeman
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
303 Peachtree Street
Tel: 2024084000
Fax: 2024084400
E-mail: info@finnegan.com
URL: www.finnegan.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

10/21CAMPBELL SOUP : Adds Diane Johnson May as Chief Human Resources Officer
10/21CAMPBELL SOUP : Appoints Diane Johnson May Chief Human Resources Officer
10/21Campbell Soup Company Appoints Diane Johnson May as Executive Vice President and Chief ..
10/19CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY : Launches Program to Advance School Nutrition
10/18CAMPBELL SOUP : Annual Report
10/06CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY : Ex-dividend day for
10/05CAMPBELL SOUP : S&P Affirms Campbell Soup Ratings On Solid Operating Performance And Debt ..
10/05CAMPBELL SOUP : Citigroup Adjusts Campbell Soup's Price Target to $45 from $47, Keeps Neut..
09/27CAMPBELL SOUP CO : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Termination of a Material D..
09/27Campbell Soup Company Enters into A Five-Year Credit Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank..
More news
Analyst Recommendations on CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY
More recommendations
Financials (USD)
Sales 2022 8 431 M - -
Net income 2022 794 M - -
Net Debt 2022 4 736 M - -
P/E ratio 2022 15,6x
Yield 2022 3,69%
Capitalization 12 296 M 12 296 M -
EV / Sales 2022 2,02x
EV / Sales 2023 1,97x
Nbr of Employees 14 100
Free-Float 60,3%
Duration : Period :
Campbell Soup Company Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus HOLD
Number of Analysts 18
Last Close Price 40,70 $
Average target price 45,59 $
Spread / Average Target 12,0%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Mark A. Clouse President, Chief Executive Officer & Director
Mick J. Beekhuizen Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President
Keith R. McLoughlin Chairman
Francisco Fraga Chief Technology & Information Officer, VP
Craig Slavtcheff Chief Innovation, Research & Development Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capi. (M$)
NESTLÉ S.A.12.28%351 210
DANONE4.41%42 494