The Supreme Court ruled that two inventors’ patent of a method of hedging weather-related risk in energy prices may not be granted. The high court unanimously agreed with a lower-court ruling that said a process is eligible for a patent only if it is “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or if it “transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”
The justices agreed with an appeals court that the method was too abstract to be patented. The Supreme Court used a different analysis to reach that conclusion, disagreeing with the legal test used by the lower court. Read the Wall Street Journal article on the court decision.
By Galen Gentry
On February 24, 2010 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Defendants infringed on patents for Crocs ubiquitous foam clogs. The Appeals Court overturned an earlier ruling by the US International Trade Commission and sent the matter to the ITC to fashion a remedy.
Crocs sued several Defendants for copying the design of the foam shoe which features holes in the top forefoot and a strap for the heel. An International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge ruled against Crocs in 2008. He stated that the Defendants’ shoes did not infringe because of differences in their design and construction such as where the straps were placed, the shape of the holes and how far apart the holes were on the Defendants’ shoes. The Defendants in the case were Double Diamond Distribution Ltd., Holly Soles Holdings Ltd., and Effervescent, Inc.
In reversing the ITC Circuit Judge Randall Raider stated that the overall similarities between the shoes were such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the products at issue were the same as the patented design. Raider compared several competitors’ shoes side by side with Crocs in illustrations contained in the ruling.
It remains to be seen what the ITC will do. In an article by Craig Anderson in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on Thursday February 25, 2010 Crocs lawyer Jim Ottenson is quoted stating that most of the defendants in the original case have come up with a “design around” to avoid infringement.
Recent Comments