11 Cited authorities

  1. Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.

    122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 238 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under § 103, "an invention, A’, that is obvious in view of subject matter A, derived from another, is also unpatentable. The obvious invention, A’, may not be unpatentable to the inventor of A, and it may not be unpatentable to a third party who did not receive the disclosure of A, but it is unpatentable to the party who did receive the disclosure" and thus that "subject matter derived from another not only is itself unpatentable to the party who derived it under § 102(f), but, when combined with other prior art, may make a resulting obvious invention unpatentable to that party under a combination of §§ 102(f) and 103."
  2. L.A. GEAR, INC. v. THOM McAN SHOE CO

    988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 212 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's trade dress was not likely to be confused with that of plaintiff because of conspicuous placement on accused dress of defendant's identifying marks
  3. PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc.

    469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a “full inquiry with respect to alleged alternative designs includes a determination as to whether the alleged ‘alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specified article’ ”—not the cost or quality of the article
  4. Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.

    838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 73 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Stating " design patent protects the non-functional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in the patent"
  5. Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc.

    806 F.2d 234 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Power Controls, the district court issued a preliminary injunction against the defendant, supported only by a one-sentence explanation from the bench that was not followed by any further findings of fact or conclusions of law. 806 F.2d at 236.
  6. Rainworks Ltd. v. Mill-Rose Co.

    622 F. Supp. 2d 650 (N.D. Ohio 2009)   Cited 6 times
    Granting summary judgment on a breach of contract claim when plaintiff failed to establish the confidential nature of information that was allegedly disclosed
  7. Baker v. Banner Health

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-3029-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. May. 28, 2015)

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-3029-WJM-CBS 05-28-2015 MARTHA L. BAKER, Plaintiff-Relator, v. BANNER HEALTH, and BANNER MEDICAL GROUP COLORADO, Defendants. Judge William J. Martínez Judge William J. Martínez ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EARLY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Acting on her own behalf and on behalf of the United States, Plaintiff-Relator Martha L. Baker ("Baker") brings this lawsuit against Banner Health and Banner Medical Group Colorado (together, "Banner") for violation of the False

  8. Application of Carletti

    328 F.2d 1020 (C.C.P.A. 1964)   Cited 17 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether the appearance is "directed by" the use of the article
  9. Farmer Bros. Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.

    384 F. Supp. 595 (C.D. Cal. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    Civ. A. No. 73-2922-AAH. October 29, 1974. Nilsson, Robbins, Bissell, Dalgarn Berliner, by Billy A. Robbins, and Walker, Wright, Tyler Ward, by Oliver S. Northcote, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff. O'Melveny Myers by Donald M. Wessling, Los Angeles, Cal., Baker Bottes by Frank B. Pugsley, Larry B. Feldcamp, G. Byron Jamison, II, Houston, Tex., John R. Martin, W. Dexter Brooks, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAUK, District Judge. Findings of Fact 1. On June 22

  10. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,681 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  11. Section 171 - Patents for designs

    35 U.S.C. § 171   Cited 329 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Protecting "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ...."