Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Transocean's (plaintiff) dual-activity offshore drilling rig, allowing simultaneous operations unlike prior single-activity designs, was challenged as obvious in light of prior art by accused infringer Maersk (defendant); after the Federal Circuit previously reversed summary judgment for failing to consider Transocean's rebuttal evidence, Transocean on remand presented a 10-12% market price premium, industry praise, an internal Maersk document acknowledging it needed to match competitors' "dual-activity" features, expert skepticism that the design would even function, licensing to third parties, and evidence of solving a long-felt industry need, and a jury found the invention nonobvious, but the district court granted Maersk judgment as a matter of law.
Whether objective evidence may be sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness and establish that an invention appearing obvious in light of prior art was not, in fact, obvious.