Arminak and Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
501 F.3d 1314 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Arminak and Associates, Inc. (Arminak) (plaintiff) and Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc. (Calmar) (defendant) sell trigger sprayers for domestic products (e.g., window cleaner) to producers of such products (e.g., Windex). Calmar does not sell its trigger sprayers directly to retail customers, but only to companies that produce the actual liquid products. Calmar obtained two patents for the “shroud” of its trigger sprayers—the top portion of the sprayer behind the nozzle. Subsequently, Arminak began selling its “AA Trigger” shroud. Arminak filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment that the AA Trigger did not infringe on Calmar’s patents. Calmar filed a patent infringement counterclaim, arguing that the “ordinary observer” for purposes of the infringement analysis was a retail customer of one of the household products. Calmar’s own witness conceded that the industrial companies that buy the shrouds for trigger sprayer assembly would be able to tell the difference between Calmar’s shroud and the AA Trigger. The district court found in favor of Arminak, ruling that the appropriate ordinary observer was an industrial company that fills the trigger sprayers, and that such companies would not find substantial similarities between the shrouds. Calmar appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holderman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
