In Re Teledyne Industries, Inc. D/b/a, Teledyne Water Pik

How courts have described this case

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

• stating, that the determination that a showerhead design is not de jure functional “may well be possible only in fight of evidence more readily available to, or uniquely in the possession of, the applicant[,]” including whether competitors were able to compete with applicant’s design
• ‘We recognize that in most cases ... the best the PTO can probably do is to analyze a design from the standpoint of its de facto functional features.”
• \We recognize that in most cases . . . the best the PTO can probably do is to analyze a design from the standpoint of its de facto functional features.\
• “Determination that the design as a whole is not de jure functional may well be possible only in light of evidence more readily available to, or uniquely in the possession of, the applicant.”
• argument of counsel is not evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).