Source: http://fryer.com/DPCLIST.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:45:59+00:00

Document:
This feature provides access to the most recent U. S. design patent law cases. A list of the cases is provided with instructions on how to find the cases on the Internet. The product and main issues in the cases are identified.
3. Enter in the search block a few unique words from the case name, using the Findlaw database.
4. If there are several items found in the search, look at each items to see which one has the decision date, involves a design patent, the product identified and issues listed.
1. Go to the Federal Courts Finder database at Emory University School of Law, at http://www.law.emory.edu for the judicial region that applies to the listed case, or click on a geographic region and a list of states will appear. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has a separate button on the right side of the screen. The case information will identify the court and region.
2. The last step will take you to the court that issued the decision. Search on that web site, using key words from the case name, to locate the case.
Special Note: Some court web sites do not have a copy of the court's cases.
1. U. S. regional District Courts are where a design patent suits for infringement or declaratory judgment on validity are filed. The decisions of these courts can be appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
2. The U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (FC), is the only court that reviews issues of design patent law. Its interpretation of the law must be followed by all U. S. District Courts. However, some issues related to design patents may become involved in decisions from the regional Federal Circuit Courts. For example, insurance contracts related to indemnification of design patent litigation expenses may be decided based on contract law and appealed to a regional Federal Circuit Court, and then presented to the U. S. Supreme Court for possible review.
3. The final court of review is the U. S. Supreme Court. Its decisions on matters of U. S. design patent law are the controlling law on the facts of that cases. Its statements on law not related to the facts of the case may be dicta. While dicta is not controlling law, it is influential in deciding another case with similar facts or on policy issues. The U. S. Supreme Court considers whether review a case from the FC. The process of deciding whether to review requires a petition to the U. S. Supreme Court.
4. A Court may designate an opinion not for publication (Unpublished), and the legal effect of that decision depends on the rules of that court. Even with this uncertainty, the Unpublished decisions are made available to the publish, and they offer some guidance on how the a court might decide a case with similar facts.
Special Note on court unpublished decisions that are public record.
1. For many years U. S. courts have designated certain cases as unpublished, and while the public could obtain access to these cases the practice effect was to make these cases unknow to most legal experts. The court panel deciding the publishled case may state the case cannot be used as precedent (in support of a legal principle). It depends on the court and case what the status of an unpublished that the cases may be. With the more convenient access to unpublished decisions, in effect making them published, the issue of precedential effect is still a question that has to be evaluated for each case.
2. In the U. S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, the Circuit Court with exclusive jurisdiction on design patent law, the Court's Rule 47.6(b) states that "[any] opinion or order so designated must not be employed or cited as precedent", and explains other aspects. The Federal Circuit Rules are found on the Court's web site: URL http://www.fedcir.gov.
3. Many recent Federal Circuit cases involving design patent law have been designed as unpublished and not to be used as precedent. Except in unique circumstances, this database will not list these unpublished decisions. The primary sources of these cases, for review, are private databases, such as WestLaw and Lexis/Nexus. As a practical matter, these unpublished decisions remain unaccessible to persons not having access to these special databases.
Junker v. Eddings and Xentek Medicial Inc.
Brooks Furniture Manufacturin, Inc. v. Dutailier International Inc.andDutaillier, Inc.
Capo, Inc. v. Istopics Medical Products, Inc.
Minka Lighting, Inc. and Pan Air Electric Co. Ltd. v. Craftman International, Inc.
Rosco Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co.
Main issues: Infringement and damages where design patent and utility patent are infringed.
Main issues: Infringement; what is protected – visible during normal use test; ordinary observer test.
Main issues: Inventorship; preliminary injunction.
Main issues: Right to repair; exhaustion of rights.
Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne Inc.
Main Issues: Obviousness; primary reference modification.
Special Note: This case is not on the Findlaw web site or on the Federal Courts Emory web site. It is on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office web site (http://www.uspto.gov), under the site Index heading Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Final Decisions (on June 3, 2003, there was a problem in downloading the file).
EKCO Groups Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
Main issues: Insurance policy coverage.
Decade Industries v. Wood Technology Inc.
Eastern America Trio Products Inc. v. Tang Electronic Corp.
Main issues: Inequitable conduct; infringement - points of novelty.
ZB Industries Inc. v. Conagra Inc.
Superior Merchandise Co. v. M.G>I. Wholesale Inc.
Main issues: Inventorship; novelty, obviousness; secondary meaning; infringement - claim constructions.
Lamps Plus Inc. v. Home Depot USA Inc.
Main issues: Temporary restraining order; novelty; infringement.
Sieko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote International Inc.
Main issues: What is protected – exposed to view during use test; need for artistic merit.
Elk Corp. of Dallas v. GAF Building Materials Corp.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire and Rubber Co.
Main issues: Infringement – claim construction and points of novelty.
Unidynamics Corp. Automatic Products International Ltd.
Main issues: Functionality; infringement – points of novelty.
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v Cedarberg Industries Inc.
Main issues: Obviousness; infringement - claim construction.
Penn Fabrication (U.S.A.) Inc. Soulbella Enterprises Inc.
Victus Ltd. v. Collczione Europa U.S.A. Inc.
Main issues: Infringement; doctrine of infringement.
Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. v. Pro-Tech Power Inc.
Main issues: Functionality; claim scope.
Gargoyles Inc. v. Aearo Corp.
Adobe Systems Inc. v. Southern Software Inc.
Main issues: Statutory subject matter; inequitable conduct.
Child Craft Industries Inc. v. Simmons Juvenile Products Co.
DCNL Inc. v. Almar Sales Co.
American Eagle Wheel Corp. v. American Racing Equipment Inc.
Main issues: Reference to commercial embodiment of patent.
Motorola Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
This page was last updated on March 9, 2005.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.