The appeal

The case is Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A., No. 2025-1809 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (nonprecedential). After Maschio sued Precision for patent infringement, Precision petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16 of the '121 patent on four grounds. The Board instituted review and held all challenged claims not unpatentable. Precision appealed only the Board's ruling on Ground 4, obviousness over the Amazone operator's manual for ED model precision airplanters, Fiorido (European Patent Publication No. 0 536 543 A1), VenHuizen (U.S. Patent 7,228,807), and applicant-admitted prior art. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A).

What the claims recite

The '121 patent is titled "Seed distribution element for precision seed drills, seed drill including said element." Claim 1 recites a seed distribution element for precision pneumatic seed drills with a sowing disc rotated by a motor-driven transmission drive shaft at controlled speed; a housing with a fixed portion and a movable portion that can be closed against it; a seed collection chamber in the fixed portion and a pneumatic suction chamber in the movable portion; the sowing disc between them, with at least one ring of selector holes; and a seal on the movable portion capable of sliding contact with the disc, with a pressure differential across the disc in a segment of the ring of holes. The claim also requires "a thrust-bearing element of the sowing disc, which thrust-bearing element is supported rotatably in the movable portion in order to withstand at least some of the axial load produced by the disc on the seal."

Fiorido's figure

The dispute turned on whether Fiorido's driving disk (31), part of the alleged thrust-bearing element, is in contact with its disk (13), the alleged sowing disc. The court noted it was undisputed that if Fiorido discloses that contact, a skilled artisan would have understood the driving disk to bear some axial load and function as a thrust-bearing element, and also undisputed that Fiorido's Fig. 2 appears to show the contact. Crediting Maschio's expert, the Board found that the apparent contact would not have been sufficient to teach a skilled artisan that Fiorido's drive structure functioned as a thrust-bearing element.

Why the Board's finding fell short

The court held that none of the Board's three reasons amounted to substantial evidence. First, the Board's observation that Fiorido's text does not expressly describe the contact, and that contact was not needed for the embodiment's stated purpose, "does not preclude contact" and "certainly does not negate the existence of such contact when it is clearly depicted in Fiorido's Fig. 2," citing the rule that patent drawings can teach features the specification does not explain. Second, the apparent contact between Fiorido's sealing ring (39) and disk (13) "does nothing to disprove the contact shown between the driving disk (31) and the disk (13)." Third, the court found nothing in the expert's testimony that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to disregard what Fig. 2 shows, and it noted that the mere disclosure of an alternative embodiment "cannot suffice to counteract the depicted embodiment." Citing Homeland Housewares and Krippelz, the court declined to accept the contrary expert testimony as substantial evidence.

The remand

The court vacated the Board's Ground 4 determination for claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16 and remanded for the Board to conduct a new obviousness analysis based on Fiorido's disclosure of a thrust-bearing element. It did not reach Precision's challenges to the Board's motivation-to-combine analysis, instructing only that the Board apply the principles of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It held that Precision forfeited an alternative obviousness theory not presented to the Board. Costs were awarded to Precision.

What to watch next

Watch for the Board's proceedings on remand and for any petition for rehearing.