Legal Opinion
Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 24, 2010No. 12-5106PublishedCited by 156 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RADER, Circuit Judge.
The United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) found no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically the Commission determined that U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 (the “'858 patent”) would have been obvious at the time of invention and that none of the intervenors infringed U.S. Patent No. D517,789 (the “'789 patent”). The Commission also determined that Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) had not satisfied the technical prong of the industry requirement under section 1337 for the '789 patent. Because the Commission erred in finding that the prior art taught all of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by156 opinions
- Wbip, LLC v. Kohler Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Park B. Smith, Inc. v. Chf Industries Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
151 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.