Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc. (1993)
green
· 173 citation events
across 33 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199320092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Micro Chemical, Inc v. Great Plains Chemical Co., Inc., Lextron, Inc., and Robert C. Hummel, Defendants-Cross… (1997)
A determination that an invention was on sale within the meaning of section 102(b) requires that “the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer was primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes.” KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1451, 27 USPQ2d at 1303.
In KeyStone, we found that the ordinary observers of patented wall blocks were “visitors to trade shows.” 997 F.2d at 1451.
green
Door-Master Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. Yorktowne, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc. (2001)
While a patented design may be embodied in less than an entire article of manufacture, In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 267 , 204 USPQ 988, 994 (CCPA 1980), a “patented design is defined by the drawings in the patent.” KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1450.
green
Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/tetra, L.L.C. (1998)
See King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 859-60 , 226 U.S.P.Q. 402, 406 (Fed.Cir.1985); KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc., 997 F.2d at 1451, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1302.
green
Nathaniel H. Kolmes and Harold F. Plemmons v. World Fibers Corporation, and World Elastic Corporation, Dean R… (1997)
A determination that an invention was on sale within the meaning of section 102(b) requires that “the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in dr obvious in view of the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer was primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes.” KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1451, 27 USPQ2d at 1303.
green
Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc. (2002)
We have construed "normal use" in the design patent context to extend over "a period in the article's life, beginning after completion of manufacture or assembly and ending with the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of the article." In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1557-58 , 16 USPQ2d 1433, 1436 (Fed.Cir.1990). 27 In KeyStone, we considered infringement of a design patent directed to all faces of a construction block intended to be combined with other blocks to form a w…
green
Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc. (2002)
In KeyStone, we considered infringement of a design patent directed to all faces of a construction block intended to be combined with other blocks to form a wall. 997 F.2d at 1446, 27 USPQ2d at 1298.
green
Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc. (2006)
KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1450.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. at 2510 ; Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1196 (Fed.Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1356 , 131 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995); Keystone Retaining Wall, 997 F.2d at 1449 (“A material fact is one that may affect the decision, whereby the finding of that fact is relevant and necessary to the proceedings,” citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. at 2510 ).
KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450 (Fed. 25 Cir. 1993) (“A patented design is defined by the drawings in the patent, not just by one feature of 26 the claimed design.”).
“A patented design is defined by the drawings in the patent, not just by one feature of 26 the claimed design.”
KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1451 (“the ‘ordinary observer’ for the purpose of the block design patent is a purchaser of the patented block, not of the unpatented wall.”) See also Spotless Enterprises, 294 F.Supp.2d 322 (purchaser was buyer of hangers, not consumer of lingerie sold on the hangers).
“the ‘ordinary observer’ for the purpose of the block design patent is a purchaser of the patented block, not of the unpatented wall.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1196 (Fed.Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 1356 , 131 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995); KeyStone Retaining Wall, 997 F.2d at 1449 (“A material fact is one that may affect the decision, whereby the finding of that fact is relevant and necessary to the proceedings,” citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ).
green
Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Bremer (1997)
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. at 2510 ; Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1196 (Fed.Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1356 , 131 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995); KeyStone Retaining Wall, 997 F.2d at 1449 (“A material fact is one that may affect the decision, whereby the finding of that fact is relevant and necessary to the proceedings,” citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. at 2510 ).
green
RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC (2023)
Cir. 1988); see also KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450 (Fed.
“A design patent protects the non-functional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in a patent.”
green
Link Treasure Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. (2011)
Key-Stone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993) (internal citations omitted); Microsoft Corp., 131 S.Ct. at 2242 -43 (citing Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 67-69 , 119 S.Ct. 304 ).
Id. at 1451. [[Image here]] UPI produced a copy of their 2004 catalog, which shows a product in all relevant respects virtually identical to the one disclosed in the '038 design patent being offered for sale, along with an inventory history report stating that UPI had the cataloged item in their warehouse at that time.
An on sale bar determination requires that the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer was primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes.[ 4 ] Section 102(b) may create a bar to patentability either alone, if the device placed on sale is an anticipation of the later claimed invention or, in conjunction with 35 U.S.C. § 103 [], if…
KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450-51 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc. (2006)
The patent “protects the non-functional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in [the] patent.” KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed.Cir.1993).
KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Welsh v. Rockmaster Equipment Manufacturing, Inc. (1999)
“A determination that an invention was on sale within the meaning of section 102(b) requires that ‘the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer was primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes.’ ” KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993).
The prior art is also relevant to construing the claim of the design patent, for a design patent covers only those design elements that are novel. *641 See Oddzon, 122 F.3d at 1405 ; KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1450; Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d at 1188 .
green
Construction Technology, Inc. v. Cybermation, Inc. (1997)
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) an inventor loses his right to a patent if he has placed his invention “in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” “A determination that an invention was on sale within the meaning of section 102(b) requires that ‘the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offer…
Id. at 1451.
green
Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Tiny Love, Ltd. (1996)
See also Key Stone, 997 F.2d at 1450 (“[I]t is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of patentability and infringement.”) (citations omitted).
“[I]t is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of patentability and infringement.”
green
James River Corp. of Virginia v. Hallmark Cards (1996)
INVALIDITY A. Legal Standard The statutory bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) prevents issuance of a patent to a person otherwise entitled if “the invention was ... in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” “An on sale bar determination requires that the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offered…
green
Donnelly Corp. v. Gentex Corp. (1995)
KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993).
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., 997 F.2d at 1451.
green
Mark R. Hoop and Lisa J. Hoop v. Jeffrey W. Hoop, Stephen E. Hoop, and Hoopsters Accessories, Inc. (2002)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450, 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed.Cir. 1993) ("[I]t is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of patentability and infringement." (quoting In re Rubinfield, 47 C.C.P.A. 701 , 270 F.2d 391, 395 , 123 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1959))).
"[I]t is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of patentability and infringement." (quoting In re Rubinfield, 47 C.C.P.A. 701 , 270 F.2d 391, 395 , 123 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1959))
green
Samara Bro's v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1998)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1447 & n. 2 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co. (1998)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. (1998)
See KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1451, 27 USPQ2d at 1303 (on-sale bar “requires that the device asserted to be on sale was operable”); Seal-Flex Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Constr., 98 F.3d 1318, 1322 , 40 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed.Cir.1996) (invention not completed if it required testing under conditions of actual use).
green
Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., Lisco, Inc. And Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., Defendants/cros… (1997)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450, 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed.
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1447 (Fed.
See Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1447-48 (Fed.Cir.1993) (applying the law of the Ninth Circuit in evaluating a trade dress infringement claim). *136 B.
green
Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Nu-Kote International, Inc. And Pelikan Produktions, A.G.,… (1999)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 27 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed.Cir.1993) (design patent for wall blocks much of which are not visible after installation); In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553 , 16 USPQ2d 1433 (Fed.Cir.1990) (design patent for a hip prosthesis that is not in view after implantation in patient).
green
Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/tetra, L.L.C. (1999)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1449 , 27 USPQ2d 1297,1301 (Fed.Cir.1993).
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451-52 , 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1303 (Fed.Cir.1993); cf. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.
green
Abtox, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Exitron Corporation, Adir Jacob, and Mdt Corporation (1997)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449, 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1301 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Metric Constructors, Inc. v. United States (1999)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc. (2021)
See Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450 (Fed.
considering “the entire retaining wall block, not solely the front face of the block after it has been incorporated in a retaining wall’
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451-52 (Fed.Cir.1993). 3 Nearly ten years ago, in Pfaffv.
green
ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Panduit Corp. (2002)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall, 997 F.2d at 1450.
green
Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc. (2002)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993) (holding a determination that an invention was on-sale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable, the complete invention claimed be embodied in, or obvious from the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes). 31 .
green
Omniglow Corp. v. Unique Industries, Inc. (2002)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1993). 7 . 35 U.S.C. § 119 states that where an application for a patent is filed in this country within one year of a submission of an equivalent patent application in a foreign country, the U.S. application will be treated as if it had been filed in the United States on the date it was filed in the foreign country.
green
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (2001)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449-50 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co. (2001)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1450 (Fed.Cir.1993); Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“[I]t is the non-functional, design aspects that are pertinent to determinations of infringement.”) (footnote omitted).
green
GPA-I, LP v. United States (2000)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449-50 (Fed.Cir.1993).
green
Harris v. United States (1999)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449 (Fed.Cir.1993); Opryland USA Inc. v. Great Am.
green
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. United States (1999)
See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444 , 1449 (Fed.Cir.1993); Opryland USA Inc. v. Great Am.