Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 28 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Anchor | green | “an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design.” | 14 |
| 2 | Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. | green | “the claimed design and the accused design will be sufficiently distinct that it will be clear without more that the patentee has not met its burden of proving the two designs would appear 'substantially the same' to the ordinary observer.” | 14 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.