Sunday, November 3, 2013

W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc. case brief

W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc. case brief summary
721 F.2d 1540 (1983)

Appellant sought review of a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, holding appellant's patents invalid.

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.

  • 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.


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

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...