Kastle Systems International LLC v. Lee Strategy Group LLC
14 Cited authorities
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,235 times 40 Legal AnalysesHolding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Exergen Corporation v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 683 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding that allegation that "Exergen, its agents and/or attorneys . . . knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it" without naming "the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of the application" was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the "who" element of an inequitable conduct claim
In re Bose Corp.
580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 161 times 13 Legal AnalysesHolding that an applicant commits fraud when it knowingly makes false, material representations of fact with an intent to deceive the PTO
Sweats Fashions v. Pannill Knitting Co.
833 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1987) Cited 163 timesFinding that, on review of a grant of summary judgment in a USPTO opposition proceeding, "[opposer] would have us infer bad faith because of [registrant's] awareness of [opposer's] marks. However, an inference of 'bad faith' requires something more than mere knowledge of a prior similar mark. That is all the record here shows."
Palm Bay Imp. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 72 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding similarity between "VEUVE ROYALE" and "VEUVE CLICQUOT" because "VEUVE ... remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label"
Opryland USA v. Great American Music Show
970 F.2d 847 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 23 timesIn Opryland, Opryland USA opposed the registration of "THE CAROLINA OPRY," arguing that the term was confusingly similar to Opryland's own marks.
Lloyd's Food Products, Inc. v. Eli's, Inc.
987 F.2d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 18 timesHolding that third-party evidence should not be disregarded in evaluating the strength of a mark for purposes of determining the likelihood of confusion
Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy's, Inc.
961 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) Cited 12 timesStating that "[a]s to strength of a mark . . . [third-party] registration evidence may not be given any weight . . . [because they are] not evidence of what happens in the market place"
In re Teledyne Industries, Inc.
696 F.2d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1982) Cited 12 timesFinding that applicant failed to rebut the examiner's prima facie case of functionality
Interstate Brands v. Celestial Seasonings
576 F.2d 926 (C.C.P.A. 1978) Cited 11 timesFinding no error in the citation to third-party registrations
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 349,026 times 931 Legal AnalysesGranting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,300 times 158 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 157,899 times 196 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,316 times 24 Legal AnalysesGranting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."