Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
745 F.2d 1437, 223 U.S.P.Q. 603 (1984)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Kimberly-Clark Corporation (plaintiff) sued Johnson & Johnson (defendant) over infringement of a patent (the Roeder patent) in federal district court. The Roeder patent disclosed a sanitary napkin with pressure-sensitive adhesive strips to be secured to an undergarment. Johnson & Johnson’s defense relied heavily on evidence of previous in-house research at Kimberly-Clark of which Roeder was allegedly aware. The research included work by John Champaigne, which was reduced to practice before Roeder’s work, and separate work by Carolyn Mobley, whose research was noted in notebooks but not reduced to practice. Champaigne’s work resulted in a patent disclosing a napkin that was identical to Roeder’s except for the presence of only one adhesive strip. The court agreed that Roeder was aware of the work by Champaigne and Mobley, both of which were deemed valid prior art. The court found in favor of Johnson & Johnson, holding that there had been no infringement and that the Roeder patent was invalid on grounds of obviousness and fraud. Kimberly-Clark appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
