Catalina Lighting, Inc., and Home Depot Usa, Inc., Third Party v. Lamps Plus, Inc. And Pacific Coast Lighting, Defendants/third Party

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the trial court’s rulings as to infringement, validity, and enforceability of the ’141 and the ’904 patents
• \the jury returned a special verdict form stating that: . . . neither patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.\
• “Objective indicia may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of nonobviousness in the record.”
• “Catalina identifies no reason why its lamp alone does not provide substantial evidence of whether an ordinary observer would believe the patented lamp and the Catalina lamp to be substantially the same.”
• jury could find substantial similarity by examining sample of accused design
• utility patents and design patents infringed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).