|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/fryer/ |
Upload File : |
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.61 [en] (Win95; I) [Netscape]"> <title>U.S.DESIGN PATENT CASES</title> </head> <body> <b><i>New Feature</i>: REGULARLY UPDATED LIST OF RECENT U.S. DESIGN PATENT LAW CASES</b> <p>This feature provides access to the most recent U. S. design patent law cases. A list of the cases is provided with instructions on how to find the cases on the Internet. The product and main issues in the cases are identified. <p><b><i>Data format explained:</i></b> <br><i>Date of the decision</i> <br><i>Name of case</i> <br><i>legal citation in the U. S. Patent Quarterly (BNA)</i> <br><i>Court making the decision</i> <br><i>Product related to the design</i> <br><i>The main issues in the case</i> <p><b>How to locate a decision on the Internet: Steps are</b> <br>1. Go to the web site: http://www.findlaw.com <br>2. Click on U. S. law: cases and codes <br>3. Enter in the search block a few unique words from the case name, using the Findlaw database. <br>4. If there are several items found in the search, look at each items to see which one has the decision date, involves a design patent, the product identified and issues listed. <br> <p><b>Alternative method of locating a decision: Steps are</b> <br>1. Go to the Federal Courts Finder database at Emory University School of Law, at http://www.law.emory.edu for the judicial region that applies to the listed case, or click on a geographic region and a list of states will appear. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has a separate button on the right side of the screen. The case information will identify the court and region. <br>2. The last step will take you to the court that issued the decision. Search on that web site, using key words from the case name, to locate the case. <p>Special Note: Some court web sites do not have a copy of the court's cases. <br> <p><b>Brief Explanation of U. S. Court System related to Design Patent Law</b> <p>1. U. S. regional District Courts are where a design patent suits for infringement or declaratory judgment on validity are filed. The decisions of these courts can be appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. <p>2. The U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (FC), is the only court that reviews issues of design patent law. Its interpretation of the law must be followed by all U. S. District Courts. However, some issues related to design patents may become involved in decisions from the regional Federal Circuit Courts. For example, insurance contracts related to indemnification of design patent litigation expenses may be decided based on contract law and appealed to a regional Federal Circuit Court, and then presented to the U. S. Supreme Court for possible review. <p>3. The final court of review is the U. S. Supreme Court. Its decisions on matters of U. S. design patent law are the controlling law on the facts of that cases. Its statements on law not related to the facts of the case may be dicta. While dicta is not controlling law, it is influential in deciding another case with similar facts or on policy issues. The U. S. Supreme Court considers whether review a case from the FC. The process of deciding whether to review requires a petition to the U. S. Supreme Court. <p>4. A Court may designate an opinion not for publication (Unpublished), and the legal effect of that decision depends on the rules of that court. Even with this uncertainty, the Unpublished decisions are made available to the publish, and they offer some guidance on how the a court might decide a case with similar facts. <p><b>Special Note on court unpublished decisions that are public record.</b> <br>1. For many years U. S. courts have designated certain cases as unpublished, and while the public could obtain access to these cases the practice effect was to make these cases unknow to most legal experts. The court panel deciding the publishled case may state the case cannot be used as precedent (in support of a legal principle). It depends on the court and case what the status of an unpublished that the cases may be. With the more convenient access to unpublished decisions, in effect making them published, the issue of precedential effect is still a question that has to be evaluated for each case. <br>2. In the U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, the Circuit Court with exclusive jurisdiction on design patent law, the Court's Rule 47.6(b) states that "[any] opinion or order so designated must not be employed or cited as precedent", and explains other aspects. The Federal Circuit Rules are found on the Court's web site: URL http://www.fedcir.gov. <br>3. Many recent Federal Circuit cases involving design patent law have been designed as unpublished and not to be used as precedent. Except in unique circumstances, this database will not list these unpublished decisions. The primary sources of these cases, for review, are private databases, such as WestLaw and Lexis/Nexus. As a practical matter, these unpublished decisions remain unaccessible to persons not having access to these special databases. <p><b>Recent Cases (most recent case first) and main issues</b> <p><b>February 8, 2005</b> <br>Junker v. Eddings and Xentek Medicial Inc. <br>(citation to be announced soon and added to this list) <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Catheter Introducer Sheath <br>Main issues: Infringement, breach of non-disclosure agreement, attorney fees, inventorship, willful infringement, utility and design patent relationship, and ornamentality <p><b>January 1, 2005</b> <br>Brooks Furniture Manufacturin, Inc. v. Dutailier International Inc.andDutaillier, Inc. <br>73 U.S.P.Q. 1457, 393 F.3d 1378 <br>U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Rocking Chair Trim <br>Attorney fees <p><b>October 25, 2004</b> <br>Capo, Inc. v. Istopics Medical Products, Inc. <br>73 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1051, 387 F.3d 1352 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Sunglasses <br>Main issues: Declaratory judgment -- when it can be brought <p><b>October 20, 2004</b> <br>Bernhardt, LLC v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc <br>72 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1901, 386 F.3d 1371 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Furniture <br>Main issues: Novelty -- public use and on sale, infringement, points of novelty -- proof required <p><b>January 16, 2004</b> <br>Minka Lighting, Inc. and Pan Air Electric Co. Ltd. v. Craftman International, Inc. <br>93 Fed Appx. 214 (Westlaw publication); cert. to U. S. Supreme Court denied, 1255 S. Ct. 50 (2004) <br>Status: unpublished and not for use as precedent (special importance as based on amicus brief in petition for cert. by the Industrial Designers Society of American, addressing a major concern in court procedure, a subject needing to be addressed in U. S. law -- amicus brief available on U. S. Supreme Court web site: URL http://www.supremecourtus.gov/) <br>U.S.Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Ceiling Fan <br>Main issues: Doctrine of equivalents, need for ordinary observer evidence, role of court in summary judgment proceeding, use by the district court of drawing claim interpretation using translation of visual design into text description and applying that description <p><b>September 24, 2002</b> <br>Rosco Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co. <br>64 USPQ2d 1676 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Automobile mirror <br>Main issues: Functionality and obviousness <p><b>June 28, 2002</b> <br>Catalina Lighting Inc. v. Lamps Plus <br>63 USPQ2d 1545 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Electric lamp <br>Main issues: Infringement and damages where design patent and utility patent are infringed. <p><b>March 13, 2002</b> <br>Contessa Food Products Inc. v. Conagra Inc <br>62 USPQ2d 1065 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit <br>Shrimp tray <br>Main issues: Infringement; what is protected � visible during normal use test; ordinary observer test. <p><b>January 30, 2002</b> <br>Hoop v. Hoop <br>61 USPQ2d 1442 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Pair of motorcycle fairing edge guards <br>Main issues: Inventorship; preliminary injunction. <p><b>December 10, 2001</b> <br>EKCO Group Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois <br>61 USPQ2d 1038 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit <br>Main issue: Commercial general liability insurance policy related to design patent litigation <p><b>August 21, 2001</b> <br>Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC <br>59 USPQ2d 1907 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Camera <br>Main issues: Right to repair; exhaustion of rights. <p><b>July 10, 2001</b> <br>Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc. <br>59 USPQ2d 1472 <br>U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Door and Frame <br>Main issues: Novelty; infringement - claim interpretation; attorney fees; <p><b>April 18, 2001</b> <br>In re Haruna <br>58 USPQ2d 1517 <br>U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Optical disk <br>Main issues: Obviousness. <p><b>December 20, 2000</b> <br>Ex parte Robinson <br>58 USPQ2d 1355 <br>U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences <br>Container <br>Main Issues: Obviousness; primary reference modification. <p>Special Note: This case is not on the Findlaw web site or on the Federal Courts Emory web site. It is on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site (http://www.uspto.gov), under the site Index heading Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Final Decisions (on June 3, 2003, there was a problem in downloading the file). <p><b>November 29, 2000</b> <br>EKCO Groups Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. <br>57 USPQ2d 1267 <br>U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire <br>Tea kettle <br>Main issues: Insurance policy coverage. <p><b>June 21, 2000</b> <br>Decade Industries v. Wood Technology Inc. <br>55 USPQ2d 1431 <br>U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota <br>Stereo system stand <br>Main issues: Insurance policy coverage. <p><b>May 3, 2000</b> <br>Eastern America Trio Products Inc. v. Tang Electronic Corp. <br>54 USPQ2d 1776 <br>U.S. Southern District of New York <br>Telephone <br>Main issues: Inequitable conduct; infringement - points of novelty. <p><b>April 20, 2000</b> <br>ZB Industries Inc. v. Conagra Inc. <br>56 USPQ2d 1739 <br>U. S. District Court, Central District of California <br>Tray containing shrimp <br>Main issues: Infringement - points of novelty; summary judgment <p><b>October 25, 1999</b> <br>Superior Merchandise Co. v. M.G>I. Wholesale Inc. <br>52 USPQ2d 1935 <br>U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisianna <br>Beads <br>Main issues: Inventorship; novelty, obviousness; secondary meaning; infringement - claim constructions. <p><b>September 20, 1999</b> <br>Lamps Plus Inc. v. Home Depot USA Inc. <br>57 USPQ2d 1311 <br>U. S. District Court Central District of California <br>Lamp <br>Main issues: Temporary restraining order; novelty; infringement. <p><b>September 8, 1999</b> <br>Sieko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote International Inc. <br>52 USPQ2d 1011 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit <br>Ink cartridge <br>Main issues: What is protected � exposed to view during use test; need for artistic merit. <p><b>February 11, 1999</b> <br>Elk Corp. of Dallas v. GAF Building Materials Corp. <br>49USPQ2d 1853 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Laminated roofing shingles <br>Main issues: Inequitable conduct. <p><b>November 10, 1998</b> <br>Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire and Rubber Co. <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Tire tread <br>Main issues: Infringement � claim construction and points of novelty. <p><b>September 18, 1998</b> <br>Unidynamics Corp. Automatic Products International Ltd. <br>48 USPQ2d 1099 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Vending machine <br>Main issues: Functionality; infringement � points of novelty. <p><b>August 14, 1998</b> <br>Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v Cedarberg Industries Inc. <br>48 USPQ2d 1204 <br>U. S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois <br>Flashlight <br>Main issues: Obviousness; infringement - claim construction. <p><b>August 5, 1998</b> <br>Penn Fabrication (U.S.A.) Inc. Soulbella Enterprises Inc. <br>48 USPQ2d 1319 <br>U. S. District Court, Central District Court of California <br>Easel <br>Main issues: Public use. <p><b>August 3, 1998</b> <br>Victus Ltd. v. Collczione Europa U.S.A. Inc. <br>48 USPQ2d 1145 <br>U. S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina <br>Table <br>Main issues: Infringement; doctrine of infringement. <p><b>June 2, 1998</b> <br>Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v. Pro-Tech Power Inc. <br>U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia <br>Miter saw <br>Main issues: Functionality; claim scope. <p><b>May 19, 1998</b> <br>Gargoyles Inc. v. Aearo Corp. <br>49 USPQ2d 1557 <br>U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts <br>Eyeglasses <br>Main issues: Infringement- points of novelty; impact of defendant's design patents, <p><b>February 2, 1998</b> <br>Adobe Systems Inc. v. Southern Software Inc. <br>45 USPQ2d 1827 <br>U. S. District Court, Northern District of California <br>Typeface (computer generated) <br>Main issues: Statutory subject matter; inequitable conduct. <p><b>January 8, 1998</b> <br>Child Craft Industries Inc. v. Simmons Juvenile Products Co. <br>45 USPQ2d 1933 <br>U. S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana <br>Furniture - crib endboard <br>Main issues: Infringement. <p><b>December 27, 1997</b> <br>DCNL Inc. v. Almar Sales Co. <br>47 USPQ2d1406 <br>U. S. District Court, Northern District of California <br>Hair brushes <br>Main issues: Drawing vagueness. <p><b>October 20, 1997 (Unpublished)</b> <br>American Eagle Wheel Corp. v. American Racing Equipment Inc. <br>45 USPQ2d 1319 <br>U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit <br>Vehicle wheel front face <br>Main issues: Reference to commercial embodiment of patent. <p><b>October 20, 1997</b> <br>April 24, 1997 <br>Motorola Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. <br>45 USPQ2d 1558 <br>U. S. District Court, Southern District of California <br>Telephone housing <br>Main issues: Infringement; priority. <br> <p>End of Document <p><a href="index.html">HOME</a> <p>This page was last updated on March 9, 2005. <p><a href="ws2tc1.htm">Conditions of Use</a> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </body> </html>