Legal Opinion
Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided September 12, 2007No. 2006-1561PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLDERMAN, Chief District Judge.
Appellant Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc. (“Calmar”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Arminak & Associates, Inc. (“Arminak”), finding that the design of Arminak’s “AA Trigger” shroud did not infringe Calmar’s two design patents, U.S. Patents Nos. Des. 381,581 (“the '581 patent”) and Des. 377,602 (“the '602 patent”). Arminak & Assoc., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 424 F.Supp.2d 1188 (C.D.Cal.2006). We affirm.
I. Background
Calmar and Arminak are both in the business of selling trigger sprayers to producers of liquid…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gorham Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- The Johns Hopkins University, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Becton Dickinson and Company v. Cellpro, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., Lisco, Inc. And Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- William A. Elmer and Hth, Inc. v. Icc Fabricating, Inc., and Take-Out Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Unique Industries, Inc. v. 965207 Alberta Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
- Nordock Inc. v. Systems Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2013
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.