Law360 Canada ( August 19, 2019, 9:33 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the defendant Tetra Tech from trial judgment finding that the respondent’s patents were not invalid due to obviousness and that appellant’s track inspection system infringed the respondent’s patents for track inspection systems. The respondent’s 082 Patent disclosed a system and method for inspecting railroad track. The 249 Patent disclosed a system and method for determining rail seat abrasion of a railroad track. The 249 Patent taught and claimed two distinct systems and methods for determining the presence and extent of rail seat abrasion. The appellant, a competitor of the respondent in the field of machine vision systems for railroad track inspection, developed the Three-Dimensional Track Assessment System for inspecting railroad tracks. The appellant alleged that both patents were invalid because the subject matter of their claims would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art on the patents’ priority dates....