Gardco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
820 F.2d 1209, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 2015 (1987)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Douglas Herst (defendant) and Peter Ngai (defendant) secured a patent on a lighting fixture. The patent was assigned to Herst Lighting Company, which did business as Peerless Electric Company (Peerless) (defendant). Peerless accused Gardco Manufacturing, Inc. (Gardco) (plaintiff) of infringement, causing Gardco to seek a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement. The federal district court separated the issues, holding a nonjury trial on the issue of unenforceability—a claim that centered around Gardco’s accusation of inequitable conduct by Peerless. The trial resulted in a finding that Peerless was guilty of inequitable conduct and that the patent was unenforceable. Peerless, Herst, and Ngai appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the district court’s separation of the issues was improper and that Peerless was entitled to a jury trial on the inequitable-conduct issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Markey, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.