Results for Infringement

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0443

Date: 10.20.2019

Although more evidence is needed than just showing a similarity between a patent and a competitor’s accused product to establish copying, all evidence of objective indicia is vital in determining the obviousness of a patented invention.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.

Case Number: CLB0146

Date: 03.23.2006

Federal district court erred in construing patent for softball bat without supplying any information about accused infringing devices, since, without description of accused bats, reviewing court lacks full context of infringement action and claim construction component of infringement, and without that additional context, reviewing court cannot fully and confidently review infringement judgment, including its claim construction component; although accused product or process may not be used as form of extrinsic evidence to supply limitations for patent claim language, that rule of claim construction does not forbid awareness of accused product or process to supply parameters and scope of infringement analysis, including its claim construction component.

view Case Detail Download PDF

Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech International, Inc.

Case Number: CLB0147

Date: 12.13.2006

The doctrine of equivalents does not apply when an accused device contains the antithesis of the claims, and the doctrine does not apply when the subject matter was either foreseeable or deliberately excluded. No infringement was found under the doctrine of equivalents because the term “predetermined” was found to be limiting.

view Case Detail Download PDF