Legal Opinion
Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Company
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided July 8, 2005No. 2004-1013PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RADER. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON.
RADER, Circuit Judge.
Alfred Salazar owns U.S. Patent No. 5,535,474 (’474 patent) for a toothbrush having polishing rods that clean and polish the teeth and stimulator rods that stimulate the gums during brushing. ’474 patent, Abstract. Salazar, acting pro se, sued Procter & Gamble Co. (Procter & Gamble) for infringement of the ’474 patent. Procter & Gamble moved for summary judgment because its toothbrushes do not include the “elastic” feature of claim 1, the only independent claim of the ’474…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- The Standard Oil Company, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. American Cyanamid Company, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Systems, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Elkay Manufacturing Co. v. Ebco Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Aquatex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche SolutionsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2010
- Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2014
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.