§

LERMAN CONTAINER CORPORATION ( PATENT OWNER) et al.

2021002799 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2021)
LERMAN CONTAINER CORPORATION ( PATENT OWNER) et al.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa

    543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 364 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

  2. Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 233 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "it is not clear to what extent, if any, the doctrine applicable to obviousness should be modified to conform to the approach adopted by this court in Egyptian Goddess" and that the application of KSR to design patents is "new and untested ground"

  3. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 182 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

  4. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems v. Westrock

    997 F.2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that "there is no hidden portion" of a patented block even though "it ceases to be visible as a block when incorporated in a wall" because "[a]s a block, all parts of it are visible"

  5. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

    101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 95 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

  6. High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

    730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 49 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

  7. Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc.

    955 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that a factual issue regarding whether prior art was a primary reference precluded granting summary judgment that a patent was invalid as obvious

  8. In re Borden

    90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996)   Cited 27 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's affirmance of an obviousness rejection where the examiner found "differences between the [prior art] and appellant's design had little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design"

  9. In re Rosen

    673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982)   Cited 39 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

  10. Application of Glavas

    230 F.2d 447 (C.C.P.A. 1956)   Cited 21 times   4 Legal Analyses

    Patent Appeals No. 6179. February 21, 1956. S.L. Wheeler and Wheeler, Wheeler Wheeler, Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (S.W. Cochran, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents. Before O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON, WORLEY, COLE, and JACKSON (retired), Judges. O'CONNELL, Acting Chief Judge. This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the final rejection by the Primary

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  13. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  14. Section 1.42 - Applicant for patent

    37 C.F.R. § 1.42   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The word "applicant" when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43 , 1.45 , or 1.46 . (b) If a person is applying for a patent as provided in § 1.46 , the word "applicant" refers to the assignee, the person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or the person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter, who is applying for a patent under § 1.46 and