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
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Winston v. Redman - MSJ Brief

Winston v. Redman - MSJ Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16 |Likes:
Published by slburstein
Winston v. Redman - MSJ Brief
Winston v. Redman - MSJ Brief

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Oct 20, 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

12/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
 
WINSTON COMPANY, INC., ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) Case No. 12-CV-0646-JED-TLW)REDMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
et al.
, ))Defendants. )DEFENDANT REDMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC’SBRIEF IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 4:12-cv-00646-JED-TLW Document 56 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/16/13 Page 1 of 28
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS ...................................................... 2III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .............................................................................. 3IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 4A. T
HE
C
OURT SHOULD ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT INVALIDATING THE DESIGNPATENT
,
THEREBY DENYING COUNTS
1,
 
2,
 
3,
 
4
AND
7. .......................................................... 41. All features of the ‘903 Design Patent claim are purely functional, and the patent is therefore invalid. ........................................................................................... 42. Even were the ‘903 Design Patent valid, Plaintiff would be unable to proveinfringement under the ordinary observer test. .......................................................... 123. Plaintiff cannot prove unfair competition as pled under Count 4. ............................. 14B. T
HE
C
OURT SHOULD ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENYING THE ANCILLARY STATECLAIMS PLED UNDER 
C
OUNTS
5
AND
6. .............................................................................. 151. Plaintiff cannot prove breach of contract as pled under Count 5. ............................. 152. Plaintiff cannot prove interference with business relationship as pled under Count 6. ...................................................................................................................... 22V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 25
Case 4:12-cv-00646-JED-TLW Document 56 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/16/13 Page 2 of 28
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 C
ASES
 
 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
, 477 U.S. 242, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986) ........... 3
 Berry Sterling Corp. v. Prescor Plastics, Inc.
, 122 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................... 5, 12
 Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co.
, 189 F. Supp. 333 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) .................. 5, 6
 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
, 489 U.S. 141, 109 S. Ct. 971, 103 L. Ed.2d 118 (1989) .............................................................................................................................. 4
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 
, 477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986) ........................ 3
 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................... 12
 Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc.
, 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................................................... 4
Gorham Co. v. White
, 81 U.S. 511, 20 L. Ed. 731 (1871) ........................................................ 1, 12
 In re Mann
, 861 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 12
 Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc.
, 997 F.2d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................. 5
 L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.
, 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................. 4, 5
 Lee v. Dayton-Hudson, Corp.
, 838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................... 4, 11, 13
OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.
, 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................... 13
 PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Cos.
, 469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................... 4, 5, 7
 Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc.
, 806 F.2d 234 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................. 14
Sun Hill Indus., Inc. v. Easter Unlimited, Inc.
, 48 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................ 12
Tuffy’s, Inc. v. City of Okla. City
, 2009 OK 4, 212 P.3d 1158 (2009) .......................................... 22
Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc. v. Duracraft Corp.
, 58 F.3d 1498 (10th Cir. 1995) ............... 14S
TATUTES
 
35 U.S.C. § 171 ......................................................................................................................... 4, 12O
THER 
A
UTHORITIES
 
 Manual of Patent Examination Procedures
.................................................................................... 5
ULES
 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ...................................................................................................................... 3, 25T
REATISES
 
J.T. McCarthy,
Trademarks and Unfair Competition
(2d ed. 1984) ............................................ 14
Case 4:12-cv-00646-JED-TLW Document 56 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/16/13 Page 3 of 28

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)//-->