11.15.18
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) and by extension the validity of all of the claims of Fameccanica’s U.S. Patent No. 6,994,761, entitled “Disposable Absorbent Garment such as a diaper or training pants and a process of making the same.”
Before the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, Curt G. Joa alleged that other patents prior to Fameccanica’s U.S. Patent No. 6,994,761 disclosed the invention claimed in Fameccanica’s patent: “a breathable, stretchable layer assembly including an inner material layer, an outer material layer and a stretchable material layer disposed there between and including vent sites which are formed by ultrasonic bonding of the inner and outer material layers through the stretchable material layer.”
However, the court affirmed the PTAB’s earlier finding and upheld the validity of Fameccanica’s U.S. Patent No. 6,994,761. While this decision addressed only the U.S. Patent, Fameccanica owns corresponding patents throughout Europe and Canada.
Before the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, Curt G. Joa alleged that other patents prior to Fameccanica’s U.S. Patent No. 6,994,761 disclosed the invention claimed in Fameccanica’s patent: “a breathable, stretchable layer assembly including an inner material layer, an outer material layer and a stretchable material layer disposed there between and including vent sites which are formed by ultrasonic bonding of the inner and outer material layers through the stretchable material layer.”
However, the court affirmed the PTAB’s earlier finding and upheld the validity of Fameccanica’s U.S. Patent No. 6,994,761. While this decision addressed only the U.S. Patent, Fameccanica owns corresponding patents throughout Europe and Canada.
In response to this ruling, Joa expressed satisfaction with the narrow interpretation of the patent claims asserted to avoid a finding of invalidity. Previously, Joa had successfully challenged the corollary Patent EP(U.K.)1355604 in the U.K. and now believes that U.S. and U.K. patents under dispute are inapplicable to its business interests.
Both companies specialize in machinery and equipment for the disposable hygiene markets.
