IP Law Daily, PATENT—PTAB: Examiner’s rejection of large audience display screen patent upheld as anticipated, obvious, (Nov 4, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A patent examiner’s rejection of a patent held by Large Audience Display Systems, LLC (LADS) as anticipated and obvious in light of prior art was upheld by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (Spears v. Large Audience Display Systems, LLC, November 3, 2014, Pothier, D.). A cross appeal filed by Britney Spears, Spears King Pole Inc., Justin Timberlake, and Tennman Productions contending the Examiner erred in not adopting various rejections based on prior art also was rejected.

Spears and others made a third party request for inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,669,346 B2 (the ’346 patent) entitled “Large-Audience, Positionable Imaging and Display System for Exhibiting Panoramic Imagery, and Multimedia Content Featuring a Circularity of Action,” assigned to LADS. Claim 1 and the other independent claims recited “[a] large audience, positionable imaging and display system for imaging and exhibition of visual-media content[.]” Claim 1 additionally recited “a screen-display,” “screen positioning means,” and “exhibition means.” The ’346 patent is the subject of litigation filed by LADS against Spears and Timberlake for using large-audience display screen that infringed upon certain claims, which has been stayed.

The Examiner did not err in the construction of the claim terms, according to the PTAB.

The PTAB was not convinced that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent and dependent claims of the ’346 patent as anticipated. Contrary to LADS’s arguments, the prior art cited by the Examiner disclosed each element of the claims.

The Examiner’s decision to reject the patent claims as obvious in light of prior art was affirmed by the PTAB. LADS was unable to show that the prior art at issue did not render the ‘346 patent obvious.

LADS also failed to show that secondary considerations required the PTAB to overturn the Examiner’s decision on obviousness. Secondary considerations, including satisfaction of a long-felt need and commercial success, can have a significant impact on an obviousness analysis. In determining nonobviousness, evidence of secondary considerations must be relevant to the claimed subject matter, and there must be a determination of whether there is a nexus between the claimed invention and evidence to be probative. However, LADS was unable to show a nexus between the claimed features and the commercial success. Evidence of licensing with the Los Angeles Lakers could be unrelated to the features of the claimed products in the ’346 patent, such as that the license was mutually beneficial to both parties or less expensive than defending an infringement suit. Although LADS claimed that Timberlake, Spears, and the Lakers used the system to generate profits, it did not demonstrate that the individuals’ or entities’ commercial success was attributable to the claimed product of claims 1–3. Also, the prior art made it clear that there was not a long felt need for the systems recited in claims 1–3 or that others failed to address this need.

The case is Appeal 2014-007355.

Attorneys: Andrew S. Langsam (Pryor Cashman, LLP) for Britney Spears, Spears King Pole Inc., Justin Timberlake, and Tennman Productions. (Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.) for Large Audience Display Systems, LLC.

Companies: Spears King Pole Inc.; Tennman Productions; Large Audience Display Systems, LLC

Cases: Patent USPTO