Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compelling objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, industry praise, and copying, can be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case that a patent is invalid for obviousness based on a combination of prior art references.
Facts:
- Conventional offshore drilling rigs used a single derrick, which could only perform one major task at a time, such as assembling a drill string or lowering a component to the seafloor, making the process time-consuming.
- Transocean developed and patented an improved offshore drilling apparatus featuring a 'dual-activity' derrick.
- This patented rig included two separate advancing stations (a main and an auxiliary one) on a single superstructure, allowing for simultaneous operations like drilling and preparing drill string sections.
- The invention also included a pipe handling system, or transfer assembly, designed to move tubular components between the two advancing stations and storage areas.
- The dual-activity design significantly increased drilling efficiency by enabling continuous operations, which had been a long-sought goal in the industry.
- Maersk Drilling USA, Inc. designed a dual-activity drilling rig with features similar to Transocean's patented invention.
- Maersk entered into a contract with Statoil to provide the use of its allegedly infringing dual-activity rig for offshore drilling operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Transocean sued Maersk for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (trial court).
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Maersk, holding the patents were invalid for obviousness and lack of enablement, and that Maersk had not infringed.
- Transocean (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (intermediate appellate court), which reversed the summary judgment of invalidity and vacated the non-infringement finding in a decision known as Transocean I.
- The case was remanded to the district court for a jury trial.
- The jury found in favor of Transocean, determining the patents were not invalid, Maersk had infringed, and awarded Transocean $15 million in damages.
- After the verdict, the district court judge granted Maersk's motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), overturning the jury's verdict in its entirety.
- The district court also conditionally granted Maersk's motion for a new trial.
- Transocean (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of JMOL and the conditional new trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can compelling objective evidence of non-obviousness overcome a prima facie case that a patent is invalid for obviousness when prior art references teach all the limitations of the claimed invention and provide a motivation to combine them?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Compelling objective evidence of non-obviousness can overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. While a prior appeal established as law of the case that two prior art references (Horn and Lund) made out a prima facie case of obviousness by teaching all elements of the asserted claims and providing a motivation to combine them, this does not end the inquiry. The Supreme Court's framework in Graham v. John Deere requires that objective evidence (secondary considerations) must always be considered. Here, the jury found seven distinct objective factors supported non-obviousness, and those findings were supported by substantial evidence, including: commercial success (market premiums, customer demand), industry praise (accolades for efficiency gains), unexpected results (efficiency gains of 25-40%), copying by Maersk, industry skepticism (fears of drill strings 'clashing'), successful licensing for high fees, and solving a long-felt but unsolved need for greater drilling efficiency. This extensive and compelling objective evidence is sufficient to rebut the prima facie case and establish that Maersk failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the invention would have been obvious.
Analysis:
This case serves as a powerful affirmation of the role of objective evidence, or 'secondary considerations,' in the patent obviousness analysis. It establishes that even when prior art references seem to disclose all elements of an invention and suggest combining them, a strong showing of real-world factors like commercial success and industry praise can be dispositive in favor of non-obviousness. The decision cautions lower courts against letting a prima facie case based on prior art overshadow compelling evidence that the invention was not, in fact, obvious to those in the field at the time. This precedent strengthens the position of patentees who can demonstrate that their invention had a significant, positive real-world impact, making it harder to invalidate patents based on a hindsight combination of older references.
