Spigen Korea Co. v. Ultraproof, Inc.

 
APPEAL NO.
19-1435, -1717
OP. BELOW
DCT
SUBJECT
Patent
AUTHOR
Reyna

Question(s) Presented

1. Whether “[t]he Court failed to appreciate the inventor’s implicit admission that the ’218 patent is a suitable primary reference in his conception drawing.” 2. Whether “[t]he Court misapprehended the effect of having the inventor’s actual references he considered in conceiving the patented design by requiring that one of the references be a ‘basically the same’ primary reference for obviousness.”

Posts About this Case