(This is an archived case summary)
In this patent infringement action, Leapfrog Enterprises alleged that the Fisher Price PowerTouch product infringed one of the claims in Leapfrog's patent, which describes an interactive learning device. The patent relates specifically to “an interactive learning device having one or more preferably touch sensitive three dimensional indicia bearing units each representing a number or letter which on touching activates voice synthesis circuitry to audibly produce the name and/or phonetic sounds associated with the indicia bearing unit”. The essence of this patent is a device that allows a child to establish relationships between symbols of letters or numbers and the sounds that are made when speaking those letters and numbers.
The allegedly infringing device was an interactive learning device that looks much like a briefcase when opened. Children place books in the device that have pictures of Sesame Street characters, such as Cookie Monster, can select various modes of operation.
This issue of patent infringement was tried in 2005 and resulted in a mistrial. The parties then allowed the US District Court, District of Delaware, to decide the matter. The District Court held that Fisher-Price had not infringed LeapFrog’s patent because the PowerTouch toy did not allow the child to select letters, only words. The Court also determined that claim 25 of LeapFrog's ‘861 patent was invalid, because it was obvious in light of relevant prior art (including another patent geared towards “providing a voice responsive puzzle game in which various words, sounds or phrases of a nursery rhyme, writing or saying may be randomly selected, actuated and enunciated”). LeapFrog appealed to the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
On appeal, LeapFrog argued that the District Court improperly relied on hindsight in determining obviousness, did not have enough evidence of motivation to combine the prior art references, and ignored the secondary considerations of obviousness. The Court of Appeals applied the recent Supreme Court decision of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 1727 S.Ct. 127 (2007), which held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” The Court of Appeals therefore held that “[a]ccommodating a prior art mechanical device that accomplishes that goal to modern electronics would have been reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in designing children’s learning devices. Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts ruling that Fisher Price’s device did not infringe LeapFrog’s patent, and that the patent was invalid for obviousness.
The case is available here.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher Price, Inc.
May 9, 2007 US Ct. of Appeals, Fed. Cir.
2007 WL 1345333
KEYWORDS: patent infringement - PowerTouch - obviousness
Summary by Byron Yep.
