Legal Opinion
Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided August 17, 1978No. Civ. 3-75-248PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
MacLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
The sole issue before the Court is whether or not United States Design Patent No. 228,728 is invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the ornamental design subject matter of the patent was on sale, in public use, or described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent.
This Court, having heard and considered all of the evidence presented at trial, as well as the pleadings and the extensive pre-trial and post-trial memoranda of counsel, makes the following Findings of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Amphenol Corporation, a Corporation of Delaware v. General Time Corporation, a Corporation of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968
- American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- In re BayerCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1978
- Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1982
- Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1980
- Theodore R. Bergstrom and Thermograte Enterprises, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. And Cardinal Foundry & Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
- Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, INC.District Court, D. Delaware · 1984
- Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2007
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.