⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit considers a dispute over a patent for machinery that plants individual seeds. The disputed design uses suction to hold seeds against holes in a rotating disc. A rotating support called a thrust-bearing element takes some of the disc's load off a rubbing seal, reducing wear. Maschio Gaspardo sued Precision Planting in Delaware in 2022, alleging patent infringement. Precision challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, relying on earlier seed-planter designs. The Board found that Precision had not proved any challenged claim unpatentable, and Precision now appeals. The argument focuses on whether parts shown in an earlier design actually touch and bear that load, and whether a skilled designer would have had reason to combine earlier designs. Obviousness asks whether an ordinarily skilled person would have reached the claimed invention from what was already known. Substantial-evidence review asks whether a reasonable mind could accept the evidence supporting the Board's factual findings, not which view the appeal judges would choose for themselves. Mr. Brown will argue for Precision that the drawings and expert evidence support its challenge and that the Board wrongly demanded an express statement of the component's function.

Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (No. 25-1809) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026.