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 
  1. Homepage
  2. Equities
  3. Japan
  4. Japan Exchange
  5. Daikin Industries,Ltd.
  6. News
  7. Summary
    6367   JP3481800005


SummaryMost relevantAll NewsOther languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

Blocking Patents: A Patent Cannot Block Itself

08/23/2021 | 12:10pm EDT


In Chemours Company FC, LLC v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Nos. 20-1289, -1290 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021), a CAFC panel held that the PTAB ("Board") erred by finding the very patent at issue in an IPR to be a "blocking patent" and that the proffered sales evidence of commercial success was therefore "weak."


A "blocking patent" is an earlier U.S. patent that prevents practice of a later invention. In some instances, the CAFC has found that such prior blocking patents may reduce the weight given to objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as failure of others, long-felt but unmet need, and commercial success. The rationale is that the existence of the prior blocking patent may have dissuaded or legally barred competitors from commercializing the purportedly obvious idea, thus rendering weak the normal inference of nonobviousness resulting from such objective indicia. See, e.g., Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 791 Fed. Appx. 916 (Fed. Cir. 2019); and Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

In Chemours, the Board evaluated the obviousness of Chemours' patent, including sales evidence proffered by Chemours for its commercial polymer FEP 9494 covered by the patent. The Board determined Chemours evidence of commercial success was weak because it concluded that the existence of the patent covering its FEP 9494 product was a blocking patent that would have precluded others from freely entering the market. Chemours, at *16.

Federal Circuit Decision

The CAFC reversed, finding the Board erred by misapplying the "blocking patent" doctrine to the patent at issue itself. Id. The CAFC explained that "[a] blocking patent is one that is in place before the claimed invention because 'such a blocking patent may deter non-owners and non-licensees from investing the resources needed to make, develop, and market such a later, 'blocked' invention.'" Id. In view of this explanation, the CAFC concluded that "the challenged patent, which covers the claimed invention at issue, cannot act as a blocking patent." Id. at *16-17.

Take Aways

The burden of showing obviousness is on the examiner during prosecution, on the petitioner in an AIA Post Grant Proceeding  and on the challenger in district court litigation. MPEP §2142; Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 719 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Patent owners may have strong commercial success arguments as to why that burden has not been met, as in the Chemours case where the blocking patent doctrine was being misapplied. Of course, the patent owner would have to overcome attacks that there is no nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and that the commercial success is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.  Chemours also dealt with those issues, and we shall deal with them in a separate post entitled "Objective Indicia: Nexus Analysis May Require Evaluation of Claims as a "Unique Combination".  

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

10/06DAIKIN INDUSTRIES : Group Releases Its Sustainability Report 2021
09/29DAIKIN INDUSTRIES,LTD. : Ex-dividend day for interim dividend
09/28Japanese shares track Wall Street lower, election outcome in focus
09/27Japanese shares give up early gains as investors book profits
09/26Japanese shares rise on reopening hopes as COVID-19 infections drop
09/22Nikkei hits two-week low on caution before U.S. Fed meet
09/21Japanese shares fall ahead of Fed outcome
09/21Evergrande woes hit Japan's toilet, air-conditioner and paint manufacturers
09/21Japan shares end lower on Evergrande woes, bargain-buying limits losses
09/20Japanese shares fall on Evergrande jitters; bargain-hunting limits losses
More news
Sales 2022 2 908 B 25 493 M 25 493 M
Net income 2022 226 B 1 977 M 1 977 M
Net cash 2022 31 116 M 273 M 273 M
P/E ratio 2022 33,1x
Yield 2022 0,76%
Capitalization 7 476 B 65 434 M 65 532 M
EV / Sales 2022 2,56x
EV / Sales 2023 2,34x
Nbr of Employees 84 870
Free-Float 91,6%
Duration : Period :
Daikin Industries,Ltd. Technical Analysis Chart | 6367 | JP3481800005 | MarketScreener
Technical analysis trends DAIKIN INDUSTRIES,LTD.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus OUTPERFORM
Number of Analysts 16
Last Close Price 25 545,00 JPY
Average target price 28 162,50 JPY
Spread / Average Target 10,2%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Masanori Togawa President, CEO & Representative Director
Koichi Takahashi GM-Accounting, Finance & Manager-Budget
Noriyuki Inoue Chairman
Takashi Matsuzaki Director, EVP, Head-North America R&D
Jiro Tomita Director, EVP & Head-Production Technology
Sector and Competitors