Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc. case brief summary
174 F.3d 1308 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff, a non-prescription eyeglass seller, sued another seller, defendant company, and its chairman. The trial court found that defendant company had infringed several patents claiming specific hangers for displaying non-prescription eyeglasses, found trademark and trade dress infringement and unfair competition, and found defendant chairman personally liable. Although it ostensibly prevailed, plaintiff appealed the district court's claim construction that one of defendant's products did not literally infringe three patents. Defendants cross-appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
After correcting the claim construction of the district court, the court affirmed the patent infringement finding. After ruling that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the district court's findings, the court reversed the judgments of trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, or personal liability for defendant chairman.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
174 F.3d 1308 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Although it ostensibly prevailed,
plaintiff appealed a judgment of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, which found that defendant company
had infringed several patents claiming specific hangers for
displaying non-prescription eyeglasses, found trademark and trade
dress infringement and unfair competition, and found defendant
chairman personally liable for the violations. Defendants
cross-appealed.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff, a non-prescription eyeglass seller, sued another seller, defendant company, and its chairman. The trial court found that defendant company had infringed several patents claiming specific hangers for displaying non-prescription eyeglasses, found trademark and trade dress infringement and unfair competition, and found defendant chairman personally liable. Although it ostensibly prevailed, plaintiff appealed the district court's claim construction that one of defendant's products did not literally infringe three patents. Defendants cross-appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The court found that the district court erred by interpreting several of the claim elements in the three patents as mean-plus-function elements subject to 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, P 6.
- The court corrected the claim construction, and under that construction affirmed the patent infringement finding.
- However, the court found that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the district court's findings concerning trademark and trade dress infringement and unfair competition.
- Absent a specifically defined, color-definite, and stable visual appearance, plaintiff's alleged trade dress could not receive protection.
CONCLUSION
After correcting the claim construction of the district court, the court affirmed the patent infringement finding. After ruling that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the district court's findings, the court reversed the judgments of trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, or personal liability for defendant chairman.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment