Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. Inc. v. Faytex Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
970 F.2d 834, 23 USPQ2d 1481 (1992)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Atlantic (plaintiff) owns the patent at issue, which contains both process claims and product-by-process claims, all directed to the manufacture of a shock absorbing shoe innersole. Atlantic sued Faytex (defendant) for infringement of the patent. Faytex did not actually manufacture the innersole. Instead, Faytex purchased the innersole from two distinct manufacturers: Surge and Sorbothane. The parties agreed that Surge infringed the patent. However, the district court held that Sorbothane did not infringe the patent because Sorbothane did not make the end-product by the process in any of Atlantic’s claims. Hence Faytex did not infringe by selling Sorbothane products.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.
