Bolivian Suit Moved To Washington from Rural Texas County Court

Full Trial Required to Determine Claim of Patent Invalidity

Description Appeals court reversed district court granting summary judgment in favor of party accused of infringing a patent. When a defendant claims a patent is invalid, the evidence must be clear and convincing for defendant to be granted summary judgment. That was not the case here, as defendant's evidence did not rise to that level.

Topic Intellectual Property

Key Words Patents; Patent Invalidity; Evidence

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts Oney was awarded a patent in 1991 for a novelty shirt. In 1995, he sued Ratliff for infringement for selling a shirt with a similar design. Ratliff defended that he had sold some of his shirts shortly before Oney applied for his patent. Despite weak evidence to support Ratliff's assertion of prior invention, which would invalidate Oney's patent, the district court granted Ratliff summary judgment in his favor. Oney appealed.

Decision Reversed. When the validity of a patent is challenged, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Since Ratliff's evidence was weak-two employees testified on his behalf-summary judgment in his favor is not appropriate. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ratliff created and sold the shirts prior to the patent's critical date, so a trial must be held.

Citation Oney v. Ratliff, 182 F.3d 893 (Fed. Cir., 1999)

Back to Intellectual Property Listings

Full Trial Required to Determine Claim of Patent Invalidity
Description	Appeals court reversed district court granting summary judgment in favor of party accused of infringing a patent. When a defendant claims a patent is invalid, the evidence must be clear and convincing for defendant to be granted summary judgment. That was not the case here, as defendant's evidence did not rise to that level.
Topic	Intellectual Property
Key Words	Patents; Patent Invalidity; Evidence
C A S E S U M M A R Y
Facts	Oney was awarded a patent in 1991 for a novelty shirt. In 1995, he sued Ratliff for infringement for selling a shirt with a similar design. Ratliff defended that he had sold some of his shirts shortly before Oney applied for his patent. Despite weak evidence to support Ratliff's assertion of prior invention, which would invalidate Oney's patent, the district court granted Ratliff summary judgment in his favor. Oney appealed.
Decision	Reversed. When the validity of a patent is challenged, the evidence must be clear and convincing. Since Ratliff's evidence was weak-two employees testified on his behalf-summary judgment in his favor is not appropriate. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ratliff created and sold the shirts prior to the patent's critical date, so a trial must be held.
Citation	Oney v. Ratliff, 182 F.3d 893 (Fed. Cir., 1999)