Avia Group International, Inc., (Formerly Pensa, Inc.) v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that review of discovery issue was precluded where litigant failed to invoke discovery rule in arguing to trial court that it could not properly respond to summary judgment motion without additional discovery
• requiring clear and convincing evidence that the undisputed facts establish demonstrate the patent is invalid
• noting distinction “between the functionality of an article or features thereof and the functionality of the particular design of such article or features thereof that perform a function”
• quotingCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,327 (1986); citing Anderson. v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 and Matsushita Electric Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)
• noting evidence must be more than merely colorable, and “a [party’s] complaint that it needed discovery will not be heard on appeal' when discovery was precluded by its own failure to seek Rule 56(f) protection”
• “A patent owner must, of course, present sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).