Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
January 20, 2016
ERRATA
______________________
Appeal No. 2015-1047
REDLINE DETECTION, LLC,
Appellant
v.
STAR ENVIROTECH, INC.,
Appellee
Decided: December 31, 2015
Precedential Opinion
______________________
Please make the following changes:
On page twenty-four, lines 1–9, replace the sentence
When asserting that a claimed invention would
have been obvious, that party “must demon-
strate by clear and convincing evidence that a
skilled artisan would have had reason to com-
bine the teaching of the prior art references to
achieve the claimed invention, and that the
skilled artisan would have had a reasonable ex-
pectation of success from doing so.” PAR
Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d

-- 1 of 2 --

REDLINE DETECTION, LLC v. STAR ENVIROTECH, INC. 2
1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
with the following sentence:
When asserting that a claimed invention would
have been obvious, that party “must demon-
strate . . . that a skilled artisan would have had
reason to combine the teaching of the prior art
references to achieve the claimed invention, and
that the skilled artisan would have had a rea-
sonable expectation of success from doing so.”
PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d
1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see Ariosa Diag-
nostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359,
1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also 35 U.S.C.
§ 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted
under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the
burden of proving a proposition of unpatentabil-
ity by a preponderance of the evidence.”).

-- 2 of 2 --