§
HFA, INC.

12 Cited authorities

  1. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 183 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  2. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

    101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 96 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

  3. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

  4. MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP

    747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 32 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court did not err by failing to provide an express verbal description of the claimed design; rather, it described the claimed design in the context of comparing it to the prior art"

  5. Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc.

    955 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that a factual issue regarding whether prior art was a primary reference precluded granting summary judgment that a patent was invalid as obvious

  6. Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.

    939 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses

    2018-2029, 2018-2030 09-26-2019 CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Campbell Sales Company, Trinity Manufacturing, LLC, Appellants v. GAMON PLUS, INC., Appellee Tracy Zurzolo Quinn, Holland & Knight LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for all appellants. Appellants Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company also represented by Steven E. Jedlinski, Chicago, IL. Martin B. Pavane, Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY, for appellant Trinity Manufacturing, LLC. Also represented by Darren Scott Mogil. Andrew L. Tiajoloff, Tiajoloff

  7. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 40 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  8. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,159 times   489 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  9. Section 171 - Patents for designs

    35 U.S.C. § 171   Cited 337 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Protecting "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ...."

  10. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  11. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  12. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and