Dorman Products, Inc. v. Paccar Inc.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 343 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design
  2. Richardson v. Stanley Works

    597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 119 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding functional necessity of configuration illustrated by the prior art where "[e]very piece of prior art identified by the parties that incorporates similar elements configures them in the exact same way"
  3. Application of Garbo

    287 F.2d 192 (C.C.P.A. 1961)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeal No. 6657. February 21, 1961. Paul W. Garbo, pro se, Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Associate Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'CONNELL, pursuant to provisions of Section

  4. Section 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions

    37 C.F.R. § 42.71   Cited 21 times   40 Legal Analyses

    (a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order. (b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A