W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc. case brief summary
721 F.2d 1540 (1983)
CASE FACTS
Appellant obtained two patents for the process of improving synthetic material. Appellant sued for infringement of process claims on first patent and, in a separate action, infringement of product claims of second patent. Appellee counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, noninfringement, fraudulent solicitation, and attorney fees. The suits were consolidated.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The court reversed regarding first patent as to "public use," obviousness, and indefiniteness, and regarding second patent as to anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed findings that two of patent one's claims were invalid because of anticipation and obviousness, respectively, and that appellant did not commit fraud on Patent and Trademark Office, affirmed the denial of attorney fees, but reversed the remaining findings as erroneous and remanded for an infringement determination.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
721 F.2d 1540 (1983)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant sought review of a judgment of
the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, holding
appellant's patents invalid.CASE FACTS
Appellant obtained two patents for the process of improving synthetic material. Appellant sued for infringement of process claims on first patent and, in a separate action, infringement of product claims of second patent. Appellee counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, noninfringement, fraudulent solicitation, and attorney fees. The suits were consolidated.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- The district court invalidated the first patent based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(a), "public use" and "on sale" under § 102(b), obviousness under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103, and indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C.S. § 112.
- Regarding the second patent, the district court held all challenged claims invalid under §§ 102, 103, and 112.
- The district court found that appellant did not commit fraud and denied appellee's request for attorney fees and refrained from deciding the infringement issue.
The court reversed regarding first patent as to "public use," obviousness, and indefiniteness, and regarding second patent as to anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed findings that two of patent one's claims were invalid because of anticipation and obviousness, respectively, and that appellant did not commit fraud on Patent and Trademark Office, affirmed the denial of attorney fees, but reversed the remaining findings as erroneous and remanded for an infringement determination.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment