Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
High Point - Appellant Brief

High Point - Appellant Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17 |Likes:
Published by slburstein
High Point - Appellant Brief
High Point - Appellant Brief

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Apr 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
2012-1455
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F
OR 
T
HE
F
EDERAL
C
IRCUIT
H
IGH
P
OINT
D
ESIGN
LLC,
 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
and
M
EIJER 
,
 
I
 NC
.,
 
S
EARS
H
OLDINGS
C
ORPORATION
,
 AND
W
AL
-M
ART
S
TORES
,
 
I
 NC
.,
Third Party Defendants-Appellees,
v.
B
UYER 
S
D
IRECT
,
 
I
 NC
.,
 Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York in Case No. 11-CV-4530,Judge Katherine B. Forrest
.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT BUYER’S DIRECT, INC.
October 11, 2012A
 NDREW
M.
 
O
LLIS
F
RANK 
J.
 
W
EST
P
HILIPPE
J.C.
 
S
IGNORE
O
BLON
,
 
S
PIVAK 
,
 
M
C
C
LELLAND
,
 
M
AIER 
&
 
 N
EUSTADT
L.L.P.1940 Duke StreetAlexandria, VA 22314(703) 413-3000
 Attorneys for Appellant 
 
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Appellant, Buyer’s Direct, Inc., certifies the following:1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:Buyer’s Direct, Inc.2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in thecaption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is:N/A.3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:N/A.4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates thatappeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agencyor are expected to appear in this court are:Andrew M. OllisFrank J. WestPhilippe J.C. SignoreOBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,MAIER & NEUSTADT L.L.P.Anthony F. Lo CiceroDavid A. BoagAMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLCDated: October 11, 2012 /s/ Andrew M. OllisAndrew M. Ollis
 
 
i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iii
 
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES.....................................................................1
 
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................1
 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................1
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................2
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................4
 
I.
 
Introduction..................................................................................................4
 
II.
 
 The ‘183 Design Patent................................................................................6
 
III.
 
 The Woolrich Shoes & the ‘183 Design Patent...........................................8
 
IV.
 
 The District Court’s Decision....................................................................14
 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT......................................................................17
 
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................21
 
I.
 
Standard of Review........................................................................................21
 
II.
 
 The District Court’s Legal Errors Require Reversal of the Grantof Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the 183 Design Patent....................22 A.
 
 The Law of Obviousness for Design Patents..........................................22
 
B.
 
 The Legal Errors in the District Court’s Analysis..................................24
 
1.
 
 The Woolrich shoes cannot be a primary reference...............................24 2.
 
 The district court failed to explain why a person oordinary skill in the art would modify the Woolrich

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->