Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-01427
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Resh, Inc. v. Barrett Conrad, Judge Davila denied leave to seek reconsideration of his obviousness ruling.
Resh, Inc. and the defendants, including Barrett Conrad.
What happened
Resh, Inc. asked the court to let it file a motion reconsidering the court’s ruling that the claimed invention was obvious. The earlier order had granted in part and denied in part both sides’ motions for partial summary judgment.
Resh argued that the court failed to address evidence of a long-felt industry need and the age of earlier references. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that Resh had not adequately presented them in its briefing, that the court had considered the secondary considerations, and that the evidence still did not overcome the showing of obviousness.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Resh’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc · No. 5:22-cv-01427
- Edward Davila
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background
On March 11, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions for partial summary judgment. Resh, Inc. then moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration concerning the court’s ruling on whether the claimed invention was obvious under patent law.
Resh’s arguments
Resh argued that the court had manifestly failed to consider two aspects of its evidence about secondary considerations of nonobviousness: an alleged long-felt but unsolved need and the age of references that Resh identified as showing unsuccessful efforts by the defendants to solve that need.
Court’s reasoning
The court identified three reasons reconsideration was not warranted. First, it found that Resh’s written submissions devoted only limited discussion to secondary considerations and did not adequately present the long-felt-need argument. The court also stated that arguments raised for the first time at the hearing were improper.
Second, the court found that it had considered and given due weight to all of Resh’s presented secondary considerations, including the purported long-felt but unresolved need, when reaching its obviousness conclusion.
Third, the court stated that revisiting the issue would not change its conclusion. Even assuming the defendants had been in the pool-cleaning business for decades but developed the claimed pole configuration only after seeing Resh’s poles, the court said that evidence did not establish a long-felt need. At most, it suggested that the defendants thought the configuration was a good idea and supported copying, which the court had already weighed. The court found no evidence that the industry had long needed poles with the claimed configuration or that others had tried and failed to create such a configuration. It concluded that the secondary considerations did not outweigh the defendants’ showing of obviousness based on the prior art.
Disposition
The court denied Resh, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.