Legal Opinion

Cricut v. Enough For Everyone

District Court, D. Utah

Decided May 13, 2024No. 2:21-cv-00601Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CRICUT, INC., a Delaware corporation, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT PATENT v. INVENTORSHIP ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, and DESIRÉE TANNER, an individual, Case No. 2:21-CV-00601-TS-DAO District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants. This matter is before the Court on the Defendant Desiree Tanner’s Motion to Correct Patent Inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b).1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion. I. BACKGROUND This case involves unjust…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
  2. The Barbed Wire PatentSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  4. Richard C. Price v. Dale R. SymsekCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  5. Ethicon, Inc. And Inbae Yoon, M.D. v. United States Surgical Corporation and Young Jae ChoiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API