Dynamic Drinkware case – Why is it important in patent law? 2015

Dynamic Drinkware argues that the Board erred in shifting the burden to Dynamic Drinkware to prove that the Raymond patent (‘555) was entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. According to Dynamic Drinkware, Raymond’s presumed effective filing date is February 15, 2000, i.e. the filing date of its provisional application, so it’s a presumptively valid prior art. Dynamic Drinkware explains that Raymond patent (‘555) was thus prior art to the ‘196 patent under § 102(e) as of its provisional date.

National Graphics argues, supporting the Board decision that Dynamic Drinkware should take the burden of proving that the provisional application of Raymond provided enough support for the claims in the Raymond patent. This is because priority claims, which establish the effective filing date of a patent, are not examined by the PTO and therefore do not automatically provide adequate written description support in the provisional application. In other words, Dynamic Drinkware needs to prove that the provisional application of Raymond includes enough details and information to support the claims made in the Raymond patent (‘555) further supported by the Board.

The court further states that there are two types of burdens of proof – a burden of persuasion and a burden of production. The burden of persuasion is the ultimate burden of proving something to a certain degree of certainty, while the burden of production is the responsibility of producing evidence to support a claim. In an inter partes review (a legal process for challenging a patent), the burden of persuasion is on Dynamic Drinkware to prove that the patent is invalid, and this burden never shifts to the patent owner. The burden of production, on the other hand, is a shifting burden that depends on where the issue arises in the trial process. It involves producing additional evidence or presenting persuasive arguments based on new or existing evidence.

Dynamic Drinkware satisfied that burden by arguing that Raymond patent (‘555) anticipated the asserted claims of the ‘196 patent under § 102(e)(2) and burden of production then shifted to National Graphics to produce evidence that either Raymond does not actually anticipate and Raymond patent (‘555) is not prior art because the asserted claims in the ‘196 patent are entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the filing date of Raymond.

National Graphics produced evidence that the invention claimed in the ‘196 patent was reduced to practice prior to the filing date of Raymond, and thus contended that the asserted claims were entitled to a date of invention prior to that of the Raymond patent (‘555). which again shifted the burden to Dynamic Drinkware to prove that the invention was not actually reduced to practice as argued. Dynamic Drinkware failed to prove that Raymond’s effective date was earlier than the date that the invention claimed in the ‘196 patent was reduced to practice.